[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTim_eBmT-6HmkqG5d7k0jjrGKAFBjzqVCricTpgK@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:01:39 +0800
From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Ofer Heifetz <oferh@...vell.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Splice status
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 13:52 +0300, Ofer Heifetz a écrit :
>> I am using Samba, so from my understanding of the source code, it
> loops and performs splice(sock, pipe) and splice(pipe, fd). There is no
> flush of any sort in between.
>>
>> When you say drain you mean to flush all data to pipe?
>>
>
> Draining pipe before splice() call would only trigger the bug less
> often.
If we don't drain the pipe before calling splice(2), the data spliced
from pipe maybe not be what we expect. Then data corruption occurs.
>
> splice(sock, pipe) can block if caller dont use appropriate "non
> blocking pipe' splice() mode, even if pipe is empty before a splice()
> call.
I don't think it is expected. The code of sys_recvfile is much like
the sendfile(2) implementation in kernel. If sys_recvfile may block
without non_block flag, sendfile(2) may block too.
BTW: Samba can use sendfile(2) instead in sys_recvfile.
--
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@...il.com)
--
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