[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <D67825C5985D0647BE40A5F5B0B70D1106E9C5690C@HQ-EXCH-7.corp.brocade.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:00:35 -0800
From: Jeff Haran <jharan@...cade.COM>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: NETLINK sockets dont honor SO_RCVLOWAT?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:45 AM
> To: Jeff Haran
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: NETLINK sockets dont honor SO_RCVLOWAT?
>
> From: Jeff Haran <jharan@...cade.COM>
> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:41:06 -0800
>
> > The operative term is "shall". The RFCs define "shall" to be
> > required behavior. I realize the RFCs do not dictate how Linux
> > works, but even the common English language usage of the word
> > "shall" conveys this meaning.
>
> The low water mark can be seen as a hint, therefore we can
> apply the term "support" loosely here.
>
> And the errors are advisory, just like things like -EFAULT.
>
> Look, I'm not going to add a feature flag or some callback just to
> handle this.
>
> You have to know what kind of protocol you are working with, and
> therefore which socket options make any sense for it.
If the open source community doesn't want a fix for something that is obviously broken, that's fine. We fix a lot of broken kernel code here at Brocade. But at least now I know that I need not bother with submitting a patch. That will save everybody a lot of time.
Thanks,
Jeff Haran
Brocade Communications
--
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