Search Results

Search found 5 results on 1 pages for 'timn'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• TTY with 256 colors?

  - by timn

  With URxvt and xterm it is possible to use a virtual terminal supporting 256 colors instead of only eight. Since my Intel GMA graphics card is well-supported by the KMS framebuffer driver, I am exclusively working on the TTY. Unfortunately it only supports eight colors although with MPlayer (-vo fbdev/fbdev2) and other framebuffer tools far more can be addressed. Is there a way to tell the TTY to use more than eight colors?

  Read the article

• Flush kernel's TCP buffer with `MSG_MORE`-flagged packets

  - by timn

  send()'s man page reveals the MSG_MORE flag which is asserted to act like TCP_CORK. I have a wrapper function around send(): int SocketConnection_Write(SocketConnection *this, void *buf, int len) { errno = 0; int sent = send(this->fd, buf, len, MSG_NOSIGNAL); if (errno == EPIPE || errno == ENOTCONN) { throw(exc, &SocketConnection_NotConnectedException); } else if (errno == ECONNRESET) { throw(exc, &SocketConnection_ConnectionResetException); } else if (sent != len) { throw(exc, &SocketConnection_LengthMismatchException); } return sent; } Assuming I want to use the kernel buffer, I could go with TCP_CORK, enable whenever it is necessary and then disable it to flush the buffer. But on the other hand, thereby the need for an additional system call arises. Thus, the usage of MSG_MORE seems more appropriate to me. I'd simply change the above send() line to: int sent = send(this->fd, buf, len, MSG_NOSIGNAL | MSG_MORE); According to lwm.net, packets will be flushed automatically if they are large enough: If an application sets that option on a socket, the kernel will not send out short packets. Instead, it will wait until enough data has shown up to fill a maximum-size packet, then send it. When TCP_CORK is turned off, any remaining data will go out on the wire. But this section only refers to TCP_CORK. Now, what is the proper way to flush MSG_MORE packets? I can only think of two possibilities: Call send() with an empty buffer and without MSG_MORE being set Re-apply the TCP_CORK option as described on this page Unfortunately the whole topic is very poorly documented and I couldn't find much on the Internet. I am also wondering how to check that everything works as expected? Obviously running the server through strace' is not an option. So the only simplest way would be to usenetcat' and then look at its `strace' output? Or will the kernel handle traffic differently transmitted over a loopback interface?

  Read the article

• EPIPE blocks server

  - by timn

  I have written a single-threaded asynchronous server in C running on Linux: The socket is non-blocking and as for polling, I am using epoll. Benchmarks show that the server performs fine and according to Valgrind, there are no memory leaks or other problems. The only problem is that when a write() command is interrupted (because the client closed the connection), the server will encounter a SIGPIPE. I am doing the interrupted artifically by running the benchmarking utility "siege" with the parameter -b. It does lots of requests in a row which all work perfectly. Now I press CTRL-C and restart the "siege". Sometimes I am lucky and the server does not manage to send the full response because the client's fd is invalid. As expected errno is set to EPIPE. I handle this situation, execute close() on the fd and then free the memory related to the connection. Now the problem is that the server blocks and does not answer properly anymore. Here is the strace output: accept(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(50611), sin_addr=inet_addr("127.0.0.1")}, [16]) = 5 fcntl64(5, F_GETFD) = 0 fcntl64(5, F_SETFL, O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 0 epoll_ctl(4, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, 5, {EPOLLIN|EPOLLERR|EPOLLHUP|EPOLLET, {u32=158310248, u64=158310248}}) = 0 epoll_wait(4, {{EPOLLIN, {u32=158310248, u64=158310248}}}, 128, -1) = 1 read(5, "GET /user/register HTTP/1.1\r\nHos"..., 4096) = 161 write(5, "HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\nContent-Type: t"..., 106) = 106 <<<<< write(5, "00001000\r\n", 10) = -1 EPIPE (Broken pipe) <<<<< Why did the previous write() work fine but not this one? --- SIGPIPE (Broken pipe) @ 0 (0) --- As you can see, the client establishes a new connection which consequently is accepted. Then, it's added to the EPOLL queue. epoll_wait() signalises that the client sent data (EPOLLIN). The request is parsed and and a response is composed. Sending the headers works fine but when it comes to the body, write() results in an EPIPE. It is not a bug in "siege" because it blocks any incoming connections, no matter from which client.

  Read the article

• Counting leaf nodes in hierarchical tree

  - by timn

  This code fills a tree with values based their depths. But when traversing the tree, I cannot manage to determine the actual number of children. node-cnt is always 0. I've already tried node-parent-cnt but that gives me lots of warnings in Valgrind. Anyway, is the tree type I've chosen even appropriate for my purpose? #include <string.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #ifndef NULL #define NULL ((void *) 0) #endif // ---- typedef struct _Tree_Node { // data ptr void *p; // number of nodes int cnt; struct _Tree_Node *nodes; // parent nodes struct _Tree_Node *parent; } Tree_Node; typedef struct { Tree_Node root; } Tree; void Tree_Init(Tree *this) { this->root.p = NULL; this->root.cnt = 0; this->root.nodes = NULL; this->root.parent = NULL; } Tree_Node* Tree_AddNode(Tree_Node *node) { if (node->cnt == 0) { node->nodes = malloc(sizeof(Tree_Node)); } else { node->nodes = realloc( node->nodes, (node->cnt + 1) * sizeof(Tree_Node) ); } Tree_Node *res = &node->nodes[node->cnt]; res->p = NULL; res->cnt = 0; res->nodes = NULL; res->parent = node; node->cnt++; return res; } // ---- void handleNode(Tree_Node *node, int depth) { int j = depth; printf("\n"); while (j--) { printf(" "); } printf("depth=%d ", depth); if (node->p == NULL) { goto out; } printf("value=%s cnt=%d", node->p, node->cnt); out: for (int i = 0; i < node->cnt; i++) { handleNode(&node->nodes[i], depth + 1); } } Tree tree; int curdepth; Tree_Node *curnode; void add(int depth, char *s) { printf("%s: depth (%d) > curdepth (%d): %d\n", s, depth, curdepth, depth > curdepth); if (depth > curdepth) { curnode = Tree_AddNode(curnode); Tree_Node *node = Tree_AddNode(curnode); node->p = malloc(strlen(s)); memcpy(node->p, s, strlen(s)); curdepth++; } else { while (curdepth - depth > 0) { if (curnode->parent == NULL) { printf("Illegal nesting\n"); return; } curnode = curnode->parent; curdepth--; } Tree_Node *node = Tree_AddNode(curnode); node->p = malloc(strlen(s)); memcpy(node->p, s, strlen(s)); } } void main(void) { Tree_Init(&tree); curnode = &tree.root; curdepth = 0; add(0, "1"); add(1, "1.1"); add(2, "1.1.1"); add(3, "1.1.1.1"); add(4, "1.1.1.1.1"); add(2, "1.1.2"); add(0, "2"); handleNode(&tree.root, 0); }

  Read the article

• What is "urgent data"?

  - by timn

  The man page of epoll_ctl() says about EPOLLPRI: There is urgent data available for read(2) operations. How exactly is "urgent data" defined and who decides which data has priority?

  Read the article

1