[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50EDF01E.10709@genband.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:33:02 -0600
From: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
To: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
CC: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
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>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Andrew Grover <andy.grover@...il.com>,
Elie De Brauwer <eliedebrauwer@...il.com>,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org, Steven Whitehouse <steve@...gwyn.com>,
RĂ©mi Denis-Courmont
<remi.denis-courmont@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: recvmmsg() timeout behavior strangeness
On 12/23/2012 02:50 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the *intended* purpose of the timeout
> argument is to set a limit on how long to wait for additional
> datagrams after the arrival of an initial datagram. However, the
> syscall behaves in quite a different way. Instead, it potentially
> blocks forever, regardless of the timeout.
Looking at the code, I think you're correct.
The comments for a2e2725 say the timeout works like for ppoll(), where
it is "an upper limit on the time for which poll() will block, in
milliseconds."
I wonder if we could play some games with sk->sk_rcvtimeo to accomplish
this?
Chris
--
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