[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+6hz4q+S5_LyVMp9OSD24U=REymv+ciur9ZaT9wH0mhSvo_cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:08:57 +0800
From: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] net: sock: Use double send/recv buff value to
compare with max value
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 21:07 +0800, fgao@...ai8.com wrote:
>> From: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
>>
>> Because the value of SO_SNDBUF and SO_RCVBUF is doubled before
>> assignment, so the real value of send and recv buffer could be more
>> than the max sysctl config sysctl_wmem_max and sysctl_rmem_max.
>>
>> Now use doulbe send/recv buffer value to compare with sysctl_wmem_max
>> and sysctl_rmem_max, and it keeps consistence with SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF
>> and SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
>> ---
>
> Looks completely bogus, based on your comprehension of this code.
It is a config param, user could config any value.
So why give it one bogus?
If need more, user could config it by himself.
>
> If you need to, fix the doc, not this code.
The current codes mean the buffer could exceed the sysctl max value.
It seems inconsistent.
Regards
Feng
>
> Unless you give more details of course, why we should take your patch.
>
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists