Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261488AbVCNN0g (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:26:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261489AbVCNN0g (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:26:36 -0500 Received: from [81.2.110.250] ([81.2.110.250]:6817 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261488AbVCNN0f (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:26:35 -0500 Subject: Re: select() doesn't respect SO_RCVLOWAT ? From: Alan Cox To: Felix Matathias Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <1110568180.17740.69.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1110806662.15927.108.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:24:24 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1002 Lines: 25 On Gwe, 2005-03-11 at 20:26, Felix Matathias wrote: > Dear Alan, > > I am positive. I can setsockopt, and then, getsockopt returns the value > that I requested. Ok I misremembered - its SNDLOWAT that is locked to one in Linux. > Stevens very clearly states that SO_RCVLOWAT has a direct impact on > select() and I assumed that this would be the case for Linux. > What is the rationale for not complying with that ? Is it the micromanagement > of select() that you dislike ? Isn't a significant reduction in the > amount of read operations a real gain in high speed networking ? I believe since we implement SO_SNDLOWAT that its a bug. Stevens and 1003.1g both agree with your expectations. The right list is probably netdev@oss.sgi.com however. Alan - 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/