Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6995867
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 27, 20262026-05-27T20:05:05+00:00 2026-05-27T20:05:05+00:00

Assume the following code where sock is a handle to TCP socket that was

  • 0

Assume the following code where “sock” is a handle to TCP socket that was previously registered with an epoll file descriptor designated by epfd.

epoll_ctl(epfd, EPOLL_CTL_DEL, sock, &ev);
close(sock);

Is it still necessary to call epoll_ctl if the socket is going to get subsequently closed anyway? Or does the socket get implicitly deregistered as a result of closing it?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-27T20:05:05+00:00Added an answer on May 27, 2026 at 8:05 pm

    From the man page:

    Q6 Will closing a file descriptor cause it to be removed from all epoll sets
    automatically?

    A6 Yes, but be aware of the following point. A file descriptor is a
    reference to an open file description (see open(2)). Whenever a
    descriptor is duplicated via dup(2), dup2(2), fcntl(2) F_DUPFD, or
    fork(2), a new file descriptor referring to the same open file description
    is created. An open file description continues to exist until all file
    descriptors referring to it have been closed. A file descriptor is
    removed from an epoll set only after all the file descriptors referring to
    the underlying open file description have been closed (or before if the
    descriptor is explicitly removed using epoll_ctl(2) EPOLL_CTL_DEL). This
    means that even after a file descriptor that is part of an epoll set has
    been closed, events may be reported for that file descriptor if other file
    descriptors referring to the same underlying file description remain open.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Assume that the following Perl code is given: my $user_supplied_string = &retrieved_from_untrusted_user(); $user_supplied_string =~
Assume that we have the following code: class Program { static volatile bool flag1;
Assume that the following code is being executed by 10 threads. pthread_mutex_lock(&lock) Some trivial
Assume that I have the following code fragment: operation1(); bw.close(); operation2(); When I call
Assume the following code: Stream file = files[0].InputStream; var FileLen = files[0].ContentLength; var b
Assume the following code, without any ref keyword, that obviously won't replace the variable
The following code is from a PIC microcontroller header file, but I assume it's
Assume the following code: using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connectionString)) { ... using (SqlCommand
Lets assume we have the following code: abstract class Base1 { protected int num;
Let's assume I have the following code: public class MainClass { public static void

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.