Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264471AbTFIRVQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:21:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264559AbTFIRVQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:21:16 -0400 Received: from hq.pm.waw.pl ([195.116.170.10]:39582 "EHLO hq.pm.waw.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264471AbTFIRVP (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:21:15 -0400 To: "David Schwartz" Cc: Subject: Re: select for UNIX sockets? References: From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: 09 Jun 2003 19:18:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1144 Lines: 28 "David Schwartz" writes: > It really doesn't matter. UDP applications have to control the transmit > pacing at application level. There is absolutely no way for the kernel to > know whether the path to the recipient is congested or not. Because what? The kernel knows everything it has to know - i.e. complete state of socket queue in question. But if select() on sockets is illegal, should we make it return -Esth instead of success. Certainly, we should get rid of invalid kernel code, right? > The kernel can't tell you when to send because that depends upon > factors > that are remote. Such as? > Yes, it would be nice of the kernel helped more. But the application > has to > deal with remote packet loss as well. Could you please show me a place in the kernel which could cause such a loss on local datagram sockets? -- Krzysztof Halasa Network Administrator - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/