Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*MSG

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*MSG_EOR\s+flag\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 20:34:46 +0100; Steve> Hi, Steve> The flag is part of the draft POSIX standard, which I Steve> followed when updating the code. Basically it works like Steve> this... Is this described in the documents available on; /archives/netdev/2000-03/msg00007.html (10,612 bytes)
2. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: Steve Whitehouse <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:41 +0000 (GMT); So far as I'm aware there is nothing available on the net, unfortunately. [some deleted text] You can return partial packets, but each call to recvmsg() must only return part (or whole) of one recor; /archives/netdev/2000-03/msg00009.html (11,833 bytes)
3. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: 07 Mar 2000 19:36:11 +0100; Steve> You can return partial packets, but each call to recvmsg() Steve> must only return part (or whole) of one record. It must Steve> never return parts of more than one record in a single Steve>; /archives/netdev/2000-03/msg00016.html (9,931 bytes)
4. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:57:23 +0000 (GMT); [deleted text] Hi, The question of read() and write() is a difficult one. For write() to work without assistance from other syscalls (i.e. sendmsg(), or perhaps one might invent ioctl(SIOEOR)) it see; /archives/netdev/2000-03/msg00017.html (11,051 bytes)
5. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:06:42 +0100; Steve> If you are suggesting that (I think you are, but I'm not Steve> 100% sure) that the protocol not transfer a single byte of Yes, I was thinking about something like this ... Steve> data to use; /archives/netdev/2000-03/msg00019.html (12,170 bytes)
6. MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: y-Bree <lmb@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:21:33 +0100; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00166.html (6,619 bytes)
7. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: ang Hui <hwang@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:30:31 +0000 (GMT); /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00168.html (9,740 bytes)
8. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 20:34:46 +0100; Hi, Steve> Hi, Steve> The flag is part of the draft POSIX standard, which I Steve> followed when updating the code. Basically it works like Steve> this... Is this described in the documents available; /archives/netdev/2000-03/msg00092.html (10,726 bytes)
9. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: Steve Whitehouse <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:41 +0000 (GMT); Hi, So far as I'm aware there is nothing available on the net, unfortunately. [some deleted text] You can return partial packets, but each call to recvmsg() must only return part (or whole) of one re; /archives/netdev/2000-03/msg00094.html (11,862 bytes)
10. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 07 Mar 2000 19:36:11 +0100; Steve> You can return partial packets, but each call to recvmsg() Steve> must only return part (or whole) of one record. It must Steve> never return parts of more than one record in a single Steve>; /archives/netdev/2000-03/msg00101.html (9,960 bytes)
11. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: Steve Whitehouse <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:57:23 +0000 (GMT); [deleted text] Hi, The question of read() and write() is a difficult one. For write() to work without assistance from other syscalls (i.e. sendmsg(), or perhaps one might invent ioctl(SIOEOR)) it see; /archives/netdev/2000-03/msg00102.html (11,073 bytes)
12. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:06:42 +0100; Hi, Steve> If you are suggesting that (I think you are, but I'm not Steve> 100% sure) that the protocol not transfer a single byte of Yes, I was thinking about something like this ... Steve> data to; /archives/netdev/2000-03/msg00104.html (12,228 bytes)
13. MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:21:33 +0100; Hi, somewhere in 2.3.x, sock_write() was changed to call proto_ops.sendmsg() of SOCK_SEQPACK sockets with MSG_EOR flag set (which broke some protocols first). My questions now are: how should the MSG; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00337.html (6,619 bytes)
14. Re: MSG_EOR flag (score: 1): Author: Steve Whitehouse <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:30:31 +0000 (GMT); Hi, Guess I should own up since it was I who introduced the change :-) The reason for it was that DECnet needed to be able to use SEQPACKET sockets. In the case where there was not enough buffer spa; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00339.html (9,762 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]