From: "Nivedita Singhvi" <nivedita@us.ibm.com>
Importance: Normal
Sensitivity: 
Subject: Re: Implementing a sockets address family
To: kevin.curtis@farsite.co.uk
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <OF5F5EDA05.82664358-ON88256BF0.0063E825@boulder.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:29:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1079
Lines: 27


> Hi,
>         thanks for the reply.  From an application point of view, when a
> socket is created it is non-blocking by default.  If the application uses
> ioctl or fcntl to set the socket to non-blocking mode, then all I was
saying
> was I don't see any indication in flags or msghdr->flags as to whether
the
> user wants to wait for the recv to complete or not.  How is my recvmsg()
> function in my implementation of the new address family supposed to
> differentiate.  I cannot see any reference to O_NONBLOCK or
> MSG_DONTWAIT in the tcp_recvmsg() function.

If its non blocking, nonblock is 1, and the function sock_rcvtimeo()
sets timeo to 0. If there isnt any data to read, copied is set to -EAGAIN,
we break out of the big do loop,  pretty much fall through the rest of the
function and return copied.

thanks,
Nivedita


-
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/