| To: | Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] fix select() for SOCK_RAW sockets |
| From: | Phil Oester <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 7 Dec 2004 09:28:12 -0800 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041207150834.GA75700@gaz.sfgoth.com> |
| References: | <20041207003525.GA22933@linuxace.com> <20041207025218.GB61527@gaz.sfgoth.com> <20041207045302.GA23746@linuxace.com> <20041207054840.GD61527@gaz.sfgoth.com> <20041207150834.GA75700@gaz.sfgoth.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 07:08:34AM -0800, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote: > 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) > > Davem: I only tested that this doesn't break UDP; if it works for Phil and > Stephen can verify that it doesn't break his bad-checksum UDP tests then > please push it for 2.6.10. Yup, that does indeed fix it for me, thanks. Phil |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | What is a reasonable upper limit to the rt_hash_table., Robin Holt |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] fix select() for SOCK_RAW sockets, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH] fix select() for SOCK_RAW sockets, Mitchell Blank Jr |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] fix select() for SOCK_RAW sockets, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |