On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:50:25PM +0200, Pablo Neira wrote:
>
> yes, you are totally right, but as I told you before, I'm not focusing
> my efforts in improving netlink sockets for tools like iproute, for
> those MSG_DONTWAIT is fairly ok.
No I'm talking not about iproute, I'm talking the kernel callers of
unicast/broadcast. They never wait.
> I don't agree, enlarging the queue size for applications that send a lot
> of information in a short period of time is just a workaround.
Workaround for what? Please define your problem.
Your original message mentioned a dead-lock, which is now obviously
non-existant.
> Herbert, I don't agree, my patch isn't related to stuff that you've
> mentioned. It's fairly true that most ?of application use socket timeout
> 0, but my patch is not for those! :-) well, still disagree?
Please reread my messages. I'm not talking about user-space applications
setting timeout to 0. Most of them don't.
I'm talking about every single kernel netlink sender. They never wait.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
|