[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090522083227.GB15578@fogou.chygwyn.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:32:27 +0100
From: steve@...gwyn.com
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc: Caitlin Bestler <caitlin.bestler@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Van Hoof <vanhoof@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] net: Introduce recvmmsg socket syscall
Hi,
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 02:51:22PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:26:58AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler escreveu:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > <acme@...stprotocols.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I.e. recvmmsg would save the value of sk->sk_rcvtimeo at entry and
> > > restore at exit, and would somehow go on subtracting the time
> > > sock_recvmsg() took from it so that the following call finds a reduced
> > > sk->sk_rcvtimeo iif it was configured in the first place and the socket
> > > is in blocking mode.
> > >
> > > How does that sound?
> > >
> >
> > I suspect that an additional timeout value will be needed ultimately.
>
> So you mean we need a timeout to wait for a datagram, that remains being
> sk->sk_rcvtimeo (SO_RCVTIMEO), and one that is passed as a parameter to
> recvmmsg?
>
The other thing which might also need looking at is the low water mark,
should that apply to each individual message, or to all the received messages
in combination? I think the latter is more useful.
Steve.
--
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