[lwip-devel] [task #10088] Correctly implement close() vs. shutdown()

[Kieran Mansley]

Follow-up Comment #4, task #10088 (project lwip):

I'm happy with changing the meaning of tcp_close() as (i) I think that the
new meaning is what most callers wanted and (ii) we'll properly document the
change.  The only workable alternative would be to remove tcp_close()
altogether and replace with two new functions with different names (but I'm
not sure what) so at least anyone updating would be painfully aware that
tcp_close had changed.  

One subtlety that seems to have got lost with closing the other bugs and
opening this one is that close() should also send a RST if there are any data
already received but not yet delivered to the application.  To do this we need
to make additions to the sockets and netconn layers to allow access to "how
much data is buffered on receive for this connection" at each layer, so we can
decide what the appropriate behaviour is.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?10088>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/