| To: | mitch@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] fix select() for SOCK_RAW sockets |
| From: | YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 08 Dec 2004 02:35:30 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041207150834.GA75700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | USAGI Project |
| References: | <20041207045302.GA23746@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041207054840.GD61527@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041207150834.GA75700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
In article <20041207150834.GA75700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Tue, 7 Dec 2004 07:08:34 -0800), Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx> says: > Phil: Here's a real patch for you to test. I actually left inet_dgram_ops > alone since it's an exported symbol (two of the users just want the .do_ioctl > value which is the same between SOCK_DGRAM and SOCK_RAW; the other is ipv6 > where it's clearly dealing with a UDP socket -- therefore I think its safest > to leave inet_dgram_ops to have the UDP behavior) Probably, we need to do the same for ipv6, don't we? --yoshfuji |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] fix select() for SOCK_RAW sockets, Phil Oester |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] fix select() for SOCK_RAW sockets, Stephen Hemminger |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] fix select() for SOCK_RAW sockets, Phil Oester |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH] fix select() for SOCK_RAW sockets (ipv6), Stephen Hemminger |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |