Re: [Nbd] another?
- To: Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>, Folkert van Heusden <folkert@...421...>
- Cc: nbd-general@...72...
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] another?
- From: Alex Bligh <alex@...872...>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:14:54 +0100
- Message-id: <955E7D4A79C020EE6FC1B797@...873...>
- Reply-to: Alex Bligh <alex@...872...>
- In-reply-to: <20110916083445.GB19601@...3...>
- References: <CAFDOyVDgN4Zo0=LDnWbJ5zBPb9gmLgg-80kuqpN6TjKWGbpRSw@...18...> <3910BC1A8D0D52DED33F94E3@...873...> <CAFDOyVBXr=nAMH7jRorSHBKFMskXbfPnkD7XwDvL5ZZxPp402A@...18...> <20110916083445.GB19601@...3...>
--On 16 September 2011 10:34:46 +0200 Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...> wrote:
Of course, relying on TCP to do this does make it possible that both
the client and the server are writing to the socket at the same time
when one of them needs to do a read first before things can go on,
thereby deadlocking the connection. This is what happens with the
integrityhuge test on some platforms, which is why I've disabled it for
now
Mmm.... if a server can't cope with client and server both writing
to the socket at the same time, doesn't that illustrate a bug on the
server? IE isn't the correct thing to do to fix the bug, not disable
the test?
Is this some form of deadlock you are talking about?
--
Alex Bligh
Reply to: