Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:42:04 -0700
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>
Cc: martijn@entmoot.nl, hzhong@cisco.com, jst1@email.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
       davem@redhat.com
Subject: Re: UDP recvmsg blocks after select(), 2.6 bug?
Message-Id: <20041007154204.44e71da6.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <4165C58A.9030803@nortelnetworks.com>
References: <00e501c4ac9a$556797d0$b83147ab@amer.cisco.com>
	<41658C03.6000503@nortelnetworks.com>
	<015f01c4acbe$cf70dae0$161b14ac@boromir>
	<4165B9DD.7010603@nortelnetworks.com>
	<20041007150035.6e9f0e09.davem@davemloft.net>
	<4165C20D.8020808@nortelnetworks.com>
	<20041007152634.5374a774.davem@davemloft.net>
	<4165C58A.9030803@nortelnetworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 831
Lines: 16

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:39:06 -0600
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:

> However, you chopped off what I consider the interesting part of my post.   I 
> propose that if we call select() on a blocking file descriptor, we verify the 
> checksum before saying that the socket is readable.  Then, at recvmsg() time, if 
> it hasn't been checked already we would check it (to allow for the case of 
> blocking socket without select()).

So people who improperly use select() with blocking sockets get punished
in a different way, with half the performance compared to today?
-
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/