[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50EEDD3F.9080203@genband.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:24:47 -0600
From: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
To: Steven Whitehouse <steve@...gwyn.com>
CC: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
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,
RĂ©mi Denis-Courmont
<remi.denis-courmont@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: recvmmsg() timeout behavior strangeness
On 01/10/2013 04:04 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Which timeout are we talking about? I've been copied into the thread
> without seeing the start of it.
The discussion is about the timeout parameter for the recvmmsg() call.
Currently in the recvmmsg() code it only checks the timeout after
__sys_recvmsg() returns, so if __sys_recvmsg() blocks forever we could
end up essentially ignoring the timeout.
> If this is the rcvtimeo then afaik this is supposed to be the max time
> that the call waits for data, but is overridden by MSG_DONTWAIT, for
> example, on a per call basis. I'd assume that recvmmsg should work
> exactly like recvmsg in this case unless there is a good reason for it
> to differ,
recvmsg() doesn't have a timeout parameter, so it uses SO_RCVTIMEO.
recvmmsg() has an explicit timeout parameter but it doesn't look like it
works properly and the documentation doesn't mention how it is supposed
to interact with SO_RCVTIMEO.
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