[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1229590692.12322.2.camel@nathan.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:58:12 +0100
From: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: make urg+gso work for real this time
Herbert Xu píše v Čt 18. 12. 2008 v 08:30 +1100:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 05:04:48PM +0100, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> >
> > This is all nice, but it still does not solve those series of SIGURGs on
> > the receiving side. My suggestion is to not generate a new SIGURG until
> > the data for the latest one have arrived. There can be only one byte of
> > urgent data, so if somebody sends more than one, it cannot be handled by
> > the receiver, anyway, so that use case is broken and need not be taken
> > into account.
>
> No we need to send a SIGURG as soon as we enter urgent mode. The
> whole point of urgent mode is to inform the receiver ASAP. As the
> urgent data itself cannot be expedited due to the in-order nature
> of TCP, setting the flag and sending the signal is the best we can
> do.
That doesn't contradict my suggestion, which is: "Send the SIGURG as
soon as possible, but do not send _more_ SIGURGs until the urgent data
arrives." I'm going to send a patch to make it clear.
Petr Tesarik
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists