[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] 2.6 UDP recvmsg vs POSIX

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6 UDP recvmsg vs POSIX
From: Olaf Kirch <okir@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:32:34 +0100
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040223094216.66602afd.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20040217121726.GD8554@xxxxxxx> <20040221130853.4c98bad6.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040223094209.GA12663@xxxxxxx> <20040223094216.66602afd.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 09:42:16AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> Therefore, the only bug was returning -EAGAIN unconditionally and that's
> what is fixed by the correct half of your changes.
> TCP does the same thing Olaf, and there is no way I'm adding the gross poll
> hacks there :-)

Okay, I can live with that. I will push this info to our posix
guys and let them chew on it.

UDPv6 needs the exact same fix BTW.

Olaf Kirch     |  Stop wasting entropy - start using predictable
okir@xxxxxxx   |  tempfile names today!

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