| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Improve behaviour of Netlink Sockets |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 28 Sep 2004 22:59:20 -0400 |
| Cc: | Pablo Neira <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040929023051.GA26716@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | jamalopolous |
| References: | <20040927213607.GD7243@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1096339407.8660.33.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040928024614.GA9911@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1096340772.8659.51.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040928032321.GB10116@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1096343125.8661.96.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040928035921.GA10675@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1096367787.8662.146.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4159D278.4060809@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1096424914.1043.103.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040929023051.GA26716@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 22:30, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 10:28:34PM -0400, jamal wrote: > > > > Being able to prioritize control (errors and ACKs) would be valuable. > > Would require mucking around with the socket queue. > > Something along what we do for a basic default 3 band queue (proabably > > two band in this case) should work. > > Obviously neither of you have taken my tip :) > > You should never use your unicast socket to receive multicast messages. > Otherwise you get to keep both pieces when it breaks. Ok, good point as long as it is common knowledge. cheers, jamal |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC/PATCH capture qdisc requeue event in stats, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: bad TSO performance in 2.6.9-rc2-BK, John Heffner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Improve behaviour of Netlink Sockets, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Improve behaviour of Netlink Sockets, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |