[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090111235001.536a858d.billfink@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:50:01 -0500
From: Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc: bert hubert <bert.hubert@...herlabs.nl>,
"H. Willstrand" <h.willstrand@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sendfile()? Re: SO_LINGER dead: I get an immediate RST on
2.6.24?
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:08:24AM +0100, bert hubert (bert.hubert@...herlabs.nl) wrote:
> > I fully understand. Sometimes I have to talk to stupid devices though. What
> > I do find is the TCP_INFO ioctl, which offers this field in struct tcp_info:
> >
> > __u32 tcpi_unacked;
> >
> > Which comes from:
> >
> > struct tcp_sock {
> > ...
> > u32 packets_out; /* Packets which are "in flight" */
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > If this becomes 0, perhaps this might tell me everything I sent was acked?
>
> 0 means that there are noin-flight packets, which is effectively number
> of unacked packets. So if your application waits for this field to
> become zero, it will wait for all sent packets to be acked.
I use this type of strategy in nuttcp, and it seems to work fine.
I have a loop with a small delay and a check of tcpi_unacked, and
break out of the loop if tcpi_unacked becomes 0 or a defined timeout
period has passed.
-Bill
--
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