| To: | Paul Jakma <paul@xxxxxxxx>, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver. |
| From: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:56:32 -0500 |
| Cc: | Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Spatzier <thomas.spatzier@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412201413240.5211@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <OF28701C56.81E1D26E-ONC1256F6B.00513EDD-C1256F6B.0052AF84@xxxxxxxxxx> <1103484552.1046.155.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41C600D7.70005@xxxxxxxxx> <1103497516.1046.231.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41C612BC.5070909@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412201413240.5211@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040922 |
Paul Jakma wrote: responsibility of the application to flush the socket on link-down events (by down'ing the interface?).That seems more complex than needs be, for userspace at least. It is the responsibility of the kernel to push complexity to userland.Some applications may NOT desire that the socket be flushed. That's an app policy decision. If this is the core issue, then I am even more inclined to think that the kernel is not what needs to be modified here.
Jeff
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver., Jeff Garzik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] PKT_SCHED: Fix cls indev validation, Thomas Graf |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver., Paul Jakma |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver., Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |