Re: [PATCH] wfix: accept4(2) SOCK_NONBLOCK flag
From: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
Date: 2024-08-06 10:22:05
Hello Jan, On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 11:19:32AM GMT, Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak wrote:
The description of SOCK_NONBLOCK is a bit confusing: "description" versus "descriptor", "open file" instead of "new file".
The "open file description" is a very specific thing. See <https://biriukov.dev/docs/fd-pipe-session-terminal/1-file-descriptor-and-open-file-description/> Have a lovely day! Alex
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <redacted> --- man/man2/accept.2 | 13 +++++++------ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)diff --git a/man/man2/accept.2 b/man/man2/accept.2 index afc04603c..65a56e37f 100644 --- a/man/man2/accept.2 +++ b/man/man2/accept.2@@ -124,12 +124,13 @@ The following values can be bitwise ORed in to obtain different behavior: .TP 16 .B SOCK_NONBLOCK -Set the -.B O_NONBLOCK -file status flag on the open file description (see -.BR open (2)) -referred to by the new file descriptor. -Using this flag saves extra calls to +Set the non-blocking +.B ( O_NONBLOCK ) +file status flag on the new file descriptor. +See the description of this flag in +.BR open (2) +for details. +Using this flag saves an extra call to .BR fcntl (2) to achieve the same result. .TP-- 2.45.2 -- | Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <kas at {fi.muni.cz - work | yenya.net - private}> | | https://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/ GPG: 4096R/A45477D5 | We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise. --Larry Wall
-- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachments
- signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 833 bytes