[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:23:10 +0000
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: linux-man@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>,
"G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@...il.com>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vsock.7: document VSOCK socket address family
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 08:32:20PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:56 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > +Data is transferred using the usual
> > +.BR send (2)
> > +and
> > +.BR recv (2)
>
> Or equally, write(2) and read(2), right? By failing to mention those, the
> text subtly implies that send(2) and recv(2) are preferred, but I don't
> suppose that is true.
>
> > +family of socket system calls.
Yes, this file descriptor is a socket so write(2) and read(2) work.
I said "family of socket system calls" to avoid listing all the
variations of send(2), sendmsg(2), sendfile(2), sendmmsg(2), etc but I
guess that doesn't include the read(2)/write(2) family of syscalls
(readv(2)/writev(2)).
Will send a follow-up patch to clarify this.
> > +.B EOPNOTSUPP
> > +Operation not supported. This includes:
> > +the
> > +.B MSG_OOB
> > +flag that is not implemented for
> > +.BR sendmsg (2)
> > +and
> > +.B MSG_PEEK
> > +for
> > +.BR recvmsg (2).
>
> So these errors might also occur for send() and recv(), right?
Yes, I'll change this to "the send(2) family of syscalls" and "recv(2)
family of syscalls", respectively.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists