From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Charles Forsyth Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:13:11 +0000 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b114c4d58390547b1a5a0 Subject: Re: [9fans] adding TCP half-duplex close Topicbox-Message-UUID: b35d6746-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --001a114b114c4d58390547b1a5a0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 it's also funny that the rationale seems to be to pass the same conformance test for Go that once had it added to Inferno so it would pass a Java test but it was never otherwise used for reasons already given, so I took it out again. On 4 February 2017 at 10:11, Charles Forsyth wrote: > I did once have a use for this in an o/s of mine, in a sort of network > pipe to servers, but it was so variably implemented by other systems (data > was flushed, or not) I gave it up as not particularly useful in practice, > except between two known systems that did what you wanted. > > On 4 February 2017 at 09:58, Charles Forsyth > wrote: > >> >> On 4 February 2017 at 01:56, Skip Tavakkolian > > wrote: >> >>> Shutting down the write-end (i.e. 'shut_wr'), should send FIN, and >>> transition to Finwait1. >> >> >> i'd make it a "read" or "write" parameter to the existing "hangup" >> message. older implementations that don't accept the parameter will give an >> error on the request because the current tcp.c doesn't accept a parameter >> > > --001a114b114c4d58390547b1a5a0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
it's also funny that the rationale seems to be to pass= the same conformance test for Go that once had it added to Inferno so it w= ould pass a Java test but it was never otherwise used for reasons already g= iven, so I took it out again.

On 4 February 2017 at 10:11, Charles Forsyth <ch= arles.forsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
I did once have a use for this in an o/s of mine, in = a sort of network pipe to servers, but it was so variably implemented by ot= her systems (data was flushed, or not) I gave it up as not particularly use= ful in practice, except between two known systems that did what you wanted.=
On 4 February 2017 at 09:58, Charles Forsyth <= span dir=3D"ltr"><charles.forsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4 February 2017 at 01:56, Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com> wrote:
Shutting down the write-end (i.e. 'shut_wr'), should = send FIN, and transition to Finwait1.

i'd = make it a "read" or "write" parameter to the existing &= quot;hangup" message. older implementations that don't accept the = parameter will give an error on the request because the current tcp.c doesn= 't accept a parameter


--001a114b114c4d58390547b1a5a0--