Hi Arnaldo,
On 05/28/2014 02:20 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> On 05/27/2014 10:30 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:28:37PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
>> escreveu:
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
>>> wrote:
Em
On 06/24/2014 10:25 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> escreveu:
>> Hi Arnaldo,
>>
>> Things have gone quiet ;-). What's the current state of this patch?
>
> Yeah, I kept meaning to prod the other people on this thread abo
Em Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu:
> Hi Arnaldo,
>
> Things have gone quiet ;-). What's the current state of this patch?
Yeah, I kept meaning to prod the other people on this thread about what
they thought about my last messages, patches, etc. :-)
Can
Hi Arnaldo,
Things have gone quiet ;-). What's the current state of this patch?
Thanks,
Michael
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
wrote:
> Em Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight escreveu:
>> From: 'Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo'
>> ...
>> > > I remember some
Em Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:17:05AM -0300, 'Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo' escreveu:
> Em Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight escreveu:
> > From: 'Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo'
> > ...
> > > > I remember some discussions from an XNET standards meeting (I've
> > > > forgotten
> > > > exactly
From: 'Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo'
> Em Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight escreveu:
> > From: 'Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo'
> > ...
> > > > I remember some discussions from an XNET standards meeting (I've
> > > > forgotten
> > > > exactly which errors on which calls were being discuss
Em Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight escreveu:
> From: 'Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo'
> ...
> > > I remember some discussions from an XNET standards meeting (I've forgotten
> > > exactly which errors on which calls were being discussed).
> > > My recollection is that you return succes
From: 'Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo'
...
> > I remember some discussions from an XNET standards meeting (I've forgotten
> > exactly which errors on which calls were being discussed).
> > My recollection is that you return success with a partial transfer
> > count for ANY error that happens after some d
On 05/29/2014 12:53 PM, David Laight wrote:
> From: 'Arnaldo Carvalho de
> ...
So, yes, the user _can_ process the packets already copied to userspace,
i.e. no packet loss, and then, on the next call, will receive the signal
notification.
>>
>>> The application shouldn't need to see
Em Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:53:22AM +, David Laight escreveu:
> From: 'Arnaldo Carvalho de
> ...
> > > > So, yes, the user _can_ process the packets already copied to userspace,
> > > > i.e. no packet loss, and then, on the next call, will receive the signal
> > > > notification.
> >
> > > The
From: 'Arnaldo Carvalho de
...
> > > So, yes, the user _can_ process the packets already copied to userspace,
> > > i.e. no packet loss, and then, on the next call, will receive the signal
> > > notification.
>
> > The application shouldn't need to see an EINTR response, any signal handler
> > sh
Em Wed, May 28, 2014 at 03:33:51PM -0600, Chris Friesen escreveu:
> On 05/28/2014 01:50 PM, 'Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo' wrote:
> >What is being discussed here is how to return the EFAULT that may happen
> >_after_ datagram processing, be it interrupted by an EFAULT, signal, or
> >plain returning a
On 05/28/2014 01:50 PM, 'Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo' wrote:
What is being discussed here is how to return the EFAULT that may happen
_after_ datagram processing, be it interrupted by an EFAULT, signal, or
plain returning all that was requested, with no errors.
This EFAULT _after_ datagram process
Em Wed, May 28, 2014 at 03:17:40PM +, David Laight escreveu:
> From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> ...
> > > But, another question...
> > >
> > > In the case that the call is interrupted by a signal handler and some
> > > datagrams have already been received, then the call succeeds, and
> > > retu
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
...
> > But, another question...
> >
> > In the case that the call is interrupted by a signal handler and some
> > datagrams have already been received, then the call succeeds, and
> > returns the number of datagrams received, and 'timeout' is updated with
> > the rem
Em Wed, May 28, 2014 at 02:20:10PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu:
> On 05/27/2014 10:30 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > attached goes the updated patch, and this is the
> > diff to the last combined one:
> >
> > diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c
> > index 310a50971769.
On 05/27/2014 10:30 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:28:37PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> escreveu:
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
>> wrote:
>>> Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
>>> escreve
On 05/27/2014 10:30 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:28:37PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> escreveu:
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
>> wrote:
>>> Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
>>> escreve
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
wrote:
> Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> escreveu:
>> On 05/26/2014 11:17 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> > Can you try the attached patch on top of the first one?
>
>> Patches on patches is a
Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu:
> On 05/26/2014 11:17 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Can you try the attached patch on top of the first one?
> Patches on patches is a way to make your testers work unnecessarily
> harder. Also, it means that
Hi Arnaldo,
On 05/26/2014 11:17 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:46:47AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>> Em Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:27:45PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
>> escreveu:
>>> Thanks! I applied this patch against 3.15-rc6.
>
>>> recvmm
Em Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:46:47AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:27:45PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> escreveu:
> > Thanks! I applied this patch against 3.15-rc6.
> > recvmmsg() now (mostly) does what I expect:
> > * it waits until either the time
Em Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:27:45PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu:
> Hi Arnaldo,
>
> On 05/21/2014 11:05 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:34:51AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> >> Em Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk
Ping!
On 05/22/2014 04:27 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Arnaldo,
>
> On 05/21/2014 11:05 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:34:51AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>>> Em Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
>>>
On 05/23/2014 09:55 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:00:55PM -0400, David Miller escreveu:
>> From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
>> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 18:05:35 -0300
>
>>> But after thinking a bit more, looks like we need to do that, please
>>> take a look at the a
Em Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:00:55PM -0400, David Miller escreveu:
> From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 18:05:35 -0300
> > But after thinking a bit more, looks like we need to do that, please
> > take a look at the attached patch to see if it addresses the problem.
> > Mostly
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 18:05:35 -0300
> But after thinking a bit more, looks like we need to do that, please
> take a look at the attached patch to see if it addresses the problem.
>
> Mostly it adds a new timeop to the per protocol recvmsg()
> implementations, tha
Hi Arnaldo,
On 05/21/2014 11:05 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:34:51AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>> Em Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:15:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
>> escreveu:
>>> Hi Arnaldo,
>
>>> Ping!
>
>> I acknowledge the problem, t
28 matches
Mail list logo
