Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269754AbUJGI2z (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 04:28:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269755AbUJGI2z (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 04:28:55 -0400 Received: from brown.brainfood.com ([146.82.138.61]:10385 "EHLO gradall.private.brainfood.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269754AbUJGI2y (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 04:28:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:28:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Adam Heath X-X-Sender: adam@gradall.private.brainfood.com cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: UDP recvmsg blocks after select(), 2.6 bug? In-Reply-To: <20041007080414.GA28999@outpost.ds9a.nl> Message-ID: References: <4164CB02.2030607@kegel.com> <20041007080414.GA28999@outpost.ds9a.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 880 Lines: 21 On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, bert hubert wrote: > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:50:10PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: > > > It would be nice to know how other operating systems behave > > when receiving UDP packets with bad checksums. Can someone > > try BSD and Solaris? > > It does not matter - this behaviour should not be depended upon. There are > lots of other reasons why a packet might in fact not be available, kernels > are allowed to drop UDP packets at will. I've been lurking and reading this thread with great interest. I had been leaning towards thinking the kernel was wrong, until I read this email. This is a very excellent point. - 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/