[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1461906355.5535.141.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 22:05:55 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 7/7] tcp: make tcp_sendmsg() aware of socket
backlog
On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 21:43 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
> I don't understand the logic completely, but isn't it
> safer to do 'goto wait_for_memory;' here if we happened
> to hit this in the middle of the loop?
Well, the wait_for_memory pushes data, and could early return to user
space with short writes (non blocking IO). This would break things...
After processing backlog, tcp_send_mss() needs to be called again,
and we also need to check sk_err and sk_shutdown. A goto looks fine to
me.
> Also does it make sense to rename __release_sock to
> something like _ _ _sk_flush_backlog, since that's
> what it's doing and not doing any 'release' ?
Well, I guess it could be renamed, but this has been named like that for
decades ? Why changing now, while this patch does not touch it ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists