| To: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: TCP sockets not flagged as writable? |
| From: | Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:22:59 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200103131816.VAA29024@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <15022.16934.52573.377722@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200103131816.VAA29024@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > Hello! > > > Is this wrong or is this just my imagination? > > Not this and not this, the third alternative is "simply right". 8) > > Wakeup happens as soon as there is _enough_ space to wake up. > 1 byte is not an enough. But my concern is that when you have just a little bit of space available a write operation may succeed without blocking, even though poll() says it won't. I understand why the criteria for poll() are as strict as they are, I'm just puzzled as to why the criteria are relaxed in tcp_sendmsg(). Should tcp_sendmsg() not also rely on the 1/3 free requirement? Michal Ostrowski mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: TCP sockets not flagged as writable?, kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: TCP sockets not flagged as writable?, kuznet |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: TCP sockets not flagged as writable?, kuznet |
| Next by Thread: | Re: TCP sockets not flagged as writable?, kuznet |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |