[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090912094110.GB24709@ioremap.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:41:10 +0400
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
alan@...ux.intel.com, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] networking/fanotify: declare fanotify socket numbers
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:51:42PM -0400, Eric Paris (eparis@...hat.com) wrote:
> For some things yes, some things no. I'd have to understand where loss
> can happen to know if it's feasible. If I know loss happens in the
> sender context that's great. If it's somewhere in the middle and the
> sender doesn't immediately know it'll never be delivered, yes, I don't
> think it can solve all my needs. How many places can and skb get lost
> between the sender and the receiver?
When queue is full or you do not have enough RAM. Both are reported at
'sending' time.
As of your description of netlink/socket usage - you will have to peek
skb queue, which is rather error-prone operation. Also you will have to
implement own skb destructor to mess with private reference counters and
netlink bits.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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