[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140503112905.GC3514@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 13:29:05 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ondřej Bílka <neleai@...nam.cz>,
Caitlin Bestler <caitlin.bestler@...il.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Elie De Brauwer <eliedebrauwer@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Steven Whitehouse <steve@...gwyn.com>,
Rémi Denis-Courmont
<remi.denis-courmont@...ia.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: recvmmsg() timeout behavior strangeness [RESEND]
Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
> Reinvestigating the problem, I see that I got my description of the
> behavior slightly wrong, although the fundamental problem remains.
> Here's my improved formulation:
[..]
> Since the timeout is only checked after the arrival of each datagram,
> we can have scenarios like the following:
>
> 0. Assume a timeout of 10 (T) seconds, that vlen is 5, and the call
> is made at time X
>
> 1. First datagram arrives at time X+2.
>
> 2. Second datagram arrives at time X+4 secs
>
> 3. Third datagram arrives at time X+6 secs
>
> 4. No more datagrams arrive.
>
> In this case, the call blocks forever. It hardly seems that this could
> be intended behavior. The problem, of course is that the timeout is
> checked only after receipt of a datagram.
Isn't that what MSG_WAITFORONE is supposed to solve?
--
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