[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y6ot3t7o.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 07:46:51 +0900
From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug #14015] pty regressed again, breaking expect and gcc's testsuite
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
>> So, it will use the 64kb limit at least few paths, and I'm not sure
>> though, non-n_tty path (e.g. ppp) doesn't use tty_write_room() check
>> always. It may not be consistent if we removed pty_space() in pty_write().
>
> The correct behaviour for most network protocols to overflow is to drop
> packets so the behaviour of not checking was intentional.
I see. I meant, ppp doesn't check (64kb) on write, but post-process(?)
checks (8kb). If there is this situation, I just worried it becomes the
cause of wrong behavior.
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists