Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269903AbUJTWAm (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:00:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268884AbUJTWAi (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:00:38 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]:742 "EHLO zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269903AbUJTV6x (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:58:53 -0400 Message-ID: <4176DF84.4050401@nortelnetworks.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:58:28 -0600 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: Chris Friesen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: UDP recvmsg blocks after select(), 2.6 bug? References: <20041016062512.GA17971@mark.mielke.cc> <20041017133537.GL7468@marowsky-bree.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 866 Lines: 21 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > EIO seems to be The Right Thing[TM]... it pretty much says "yes, we > received something, but it was bad." What isn't clear to me is how > applications react to EIO. It could easily be considered a fatal > error... :-/ From an application point of view, The Right Thing would be to do the checksum validation at select() time if the socket is blocking. If it's nonblocking, then just do as we do now and return EAGAIN at recvmsg() time. This would ensure that all existing apps get the expected semantics, but the ones based on blocking sockets would see a performance degredation. Chris - 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/