From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-36043-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 21064 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2015 12:41:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 36043
Received: (qmail 26725 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2015 12:41:31 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-f794b6d000001495-66-55c8999b8a8c
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:31:21 +0100
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk>, Zsh workers <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: ignore EINTR in ztcp/zsocket accept()
Message-id: <20150810133121.0df58da4@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <21555.1439209139@thecus.kiddle.eu>
References: <20150810102212.GA45526@Qliphoth.local>
 <21555.1439209139@thecus.kiddle.eu>
Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker:
 H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xy7qzZ54INdh7S9di0vzprBYHmx8y
	OTB5HD/TyOKx6uAHpgCmKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6Mo/d/Mxc8Yq7ou7yctYHxI1MXIyeHhICJ
	xIsZ7YwQtpjEhXvr2UBsIYGljBL3Vjt3MXIB2Q1MEvcP7mOGcLYxSnxbfBasg0VAVWL/qVdg
	HWwChhJTN80Gi4sIeEl8OrwdKM7BISxgKfFzoQ5ImFfAXuLu0+2MIGFOAQOJK+tSIXZFSrx8
	1ssCYvML6Etc/fsJ6jZ7iZlXzjBCtApK/Jh8D6yGWUBLYvO2JlYIW15i85q3zBBz1CVu3N3N
	PoFRaBaSlllIWmYhaVnAyLyKUTS1NLmgOCk910ivODG3uDQvXS85P3cTIySIv+5gXHrM6hCj
	AAejEg/vjM3HQ4VYE8uKK3MPMUpwMCuJ8EZWnwgV4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjNwaIkzjtz
	1/sQIYH0xJLU7NTUgtQimCwTB6dUAyOzi8kF9VleHj0JhgeTd2ZGLzwtwv0nWUJQY/ISkzVp
	/wzOdq5YdOrKJm0zgelL9ZVWsrtFf+FLvpB1o88k+45n4u+VgbtDe5n9Cp5XGT600uxdtZ5D
	aVtuuo+J3daY9CnrojV7TZ/6ChuHGu69dYa3bFXkQkGBL5ZL4s6YsO/cl8gycfraNUosxRmJ
	hlrMRcWJAKVXrSdeAgAA

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:18:59 +0200
Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Joshua Krusell wrote:
> > -	{
> > +	do {
> > +	    rfd = accept(lfd, (struct sockaddr *)&soun, &len);
> > +	} while (errno == EINTR && !errflag);
> 
> On success, errno is not set to zero. So if it happens to have a stray
> value of EINTR before the loop, this could loop despite accept having
> succeeded. Shouldn't rfd == -1 also be included in the condition?

Yes, you're right.

pws