On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Francois Romieu <rom...@fr.zoreil.com> wrote: > Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> : > [...] >> If you can justify API is not broken by doing that, I am more than happy >> to do it, as I already stated in the latter patch: >> >> "Of course, the logic itself is suspicious, other sendmsg() >> could handle skb allocation failure very well, not sure >> why ATM has to wait for a successful one here. But probably >> it is too late to change since the errno and behavior is >> visible to user-space. So just leave the logic as it is." >> >> For some reason, no one reads that patch. :-/ > > Believe it or not but I actually read it. > > It changes the logic : the original code would have been unable to > escape the while loop on memory failure. Fine, I don't mind the change. > Actually I believe that these two patches are too shy (and backport > unefficient). Instead of trying to reformulate why, here's what I have > in mind. Uncompiled, caveat emptor, etc.
I just don't want to break things, that is it. If you can convince me your change will not break any user-space application, again I am more than just happy about it. My ATM knowledge is close to zero. ;)
