Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*select\s+doesn\'t\s+respect\s+SO

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*select\s+doesn\'t\s+respect\s+SO_RCVLOWAT\s+\?\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. PSEC trouble (score: 1): Author: g <penberg@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:24:24 +0000; Ok I misremembered - its SNDLOWAT that is locked to one in Linux. I believe since we implement SO_SNDLOWAT that its a bug. Stevens and 1003.1g both agree with your expectations. The right list is pro; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00830.html (10,032 bytes)
2. esn't respect SO_RCVLOWAT ? (score: 1): Author: y <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:09:41 +0000; The only value the code at least used to support was setting it to 1. Are you sure you are actually setting/checking ok ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00831.html (9,187 bytes)
3. esn't respect SO_RCVLOWAT ? (score: 1): Author: e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 06:43:08 +0100; as discussed in a previous thread, if you use select(), you should also use non-blocking sockets. There are cases where select() can wake you up without anything to read, eg if there is a packet wait; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00832.html (10,798 bytes)
4. esn't respect SO_RCVLOWAT ? (score: 1): Author: per <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:58:51 -0500 (EST); Dear all, I am running a 2.4.21-9.0.3.ELsmp #1 kernel and I can setsockopt and getsockopt correctly the SO_RCVLOWAT option, but select() seems to mark a socket readable even if a single byte is ready; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00833.html (10,138 bytes)
5. VLOWAT ? (score: 1): Author: n@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:26:38 -0500 (EST); Dear Alan, I am positive. I can setsockopt, and then, getsockopt returns the value that I requested. Stevens very clearly states that SO_RCVLOWAT has a direct impact on select() and I assumed that th; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00835.html (10,968 bytes)
6. esn't respect SO_RCVLOWAT ? (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:34:22 +0900 (JST); I've just forwarded this thread to netdev. --yoshfuji; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00836.html (8,696 bytes)
7. Re: select() doesn't respect SO_RCVLOWAT ? (score: 1): Author: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:24:24 +0000; Ok I misremembered - its SNDLOWAT that is locked to one in Linux. I believe since we implement SO_SNDLOWAT that its a bug. Stevens and 1003.1g both agree with your expectations. The right list is pro; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02753.html (10,287 bytes)
8. Re: select() doesn't respect SO_RCVLOWAT ? (score: 1): Author: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:09:41 +0000; The only value the code at least used to support was setting it to 1. Are you sure you are actually setting/checking ok ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02754.html (9,368 bytes)
9. Re: select() doesn't respect SO_RCVLOWAT ? (score: 1): Author: Willy Tarreau <willy@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 06:43:08 +0100; as discussed in a previous thread, if you use select(), you should also use non-blocking sockets. There are cases where select() can wake you up without anything to read, eg if there is a packet wait; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02755.html (10,979 bytes)
10. select() doesn't respect SO_RCVLOWAT ? (score: 1): Author: Felix Matathias <felix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:58:51 -0500 (EST); Dear all, I am running a 2.4.21-9.0.3.ELsmp #1 kernel and I can setsockopt and getsockopt correctly the SO_RCVLOWAT option, but select() seems to mark a socket readable even if a single byte is ready; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02756.html (10,138 bytes)
11. Re: select() doesn't respect SO_RCVLOWAT ? (score: 1): Author: Felix Matathias <felix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:26:38 -0500 (EST); Dear Alan, I am positive. I can setsockopt, and then, getsockopt returns the value that I requested. Stevens very clearly states that SO_RCVLOWAT has a direct impact on select() and I assumed that th; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02758.html (11,058 bytes)
12. Re: select() doesn't respect SO_RCVLOWAT ? (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:34:22 +0900 (JST); I've just forwarded this thread to netdev. --yoshfuji; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02759.html (8,838 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]