> > And is anyone working on a better patch? > > I have no idea. > > > Those patches aren't "bad" in the correctness sense. So IMO any one > > of them is better, than having that bug in there. > > You're adding a very serious performance regression, which is > about as bad as the bug itself.
No, correctness always trumps performance. Lost packets on an AF_UNIX socket are _unexceptable_, and this is definitely not a theoretical problem. And BTW my second patch does _not_ have the performance problems you are arguing about, it's just plain ugly. But hey, if you can't live with ugly code, go and fix it. > It can wait for a more appropriate fix. Now _please_ be a bit more constructive. Do you want me to send the patch to Andrew instead? His attitude towards bugfixes is rather better ;) Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
