> You mean that even if there was no kHTTPd, the current "inside TCP"
> solution is a good thing?
I do _not_ know. It can be proved only by experience.
In current 2.3 the feature is missing and the effect
is really purely negative.
[ Even worse, to be honest, it is just buggy. I think you will see this,
if several times restart loaded slave daemon, while khttpd is also
enough loaded. TCP will be confused eventually. ]
> > The second flaw is more or less easy: if khttpd kept slave socket open,
> > as all normal users do, rather than stole it from hash table,
> > it would remove the problem.
>
> I am uncertain that I understand you correctly.
> Are you talking about the "tcp_v4_lookup_listener" call (ie. the socket
> from the webserver)
Yes. It must keep this socket open. Otherwise we will have to redesign
all the logic not to rely on the fact that open files are really open 8)
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/