netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Improve behaviour of Netlink Sockets

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@gondor.apana.org.au>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <20040927213607.GD7243@gondor.apana.org.au> <1096339407.8660.33.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20040928024614.GA9911@gondor.apana.org.au> <1096340772.8659.51.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20040928032321.GB10116@gondor.apana.org.au> <1096343125.8661.96.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20040928035921.GA10675@gondor.apana.org.au> <1096367787.8662.146.camel@jzny.localdomain> <4159D278.4060809@eurodev.net> <1096424914.1043.103.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20040929023051.GA26716@gondor.apana.org.au>
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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>