On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 08:42 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> In the commit message of your patch you wrote "For all sendpage() providers,
> its a transparent change.". Why does AF_ALG need special handling?
> If users have to care about MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST it is no longer really an
> internal
Am Sonntag, 24. November 2013, 17:25:06 schrieb Eric Dumazet:
> On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 00:42 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Commit 35f9c09fe (tcp: tcp_sendpages() should call tcp_push() once)
> > added an internal flag MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST.
> > We have to ensure that MSG_MORE is also set if we
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 00:42 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Commit 35f9c09fe (tcp: tcp_sendpages() should call tcp_push() once)
>> added an internal flag MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST.
>> We have to ensure that MSG_MORE is also set if we set MSG_SE
On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 00:42 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Commit 35f9c09fe (tcp: tcp_sendpages() should call tcp_push() once)
> added an internal flag MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST.
> We have to ensure that MSG_MORE is also set if we set MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST.
> Otherwise users that check against MSG_MO
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Commit 35f9c09fe (tcp: tcp_sendpages() should call tcp_push() once)
> added an internal flag MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST.
> We have to ensure that MSG_MORE is also set if we set MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST.
> Otherwise users that check against MSG_MOR
Commit 35f9c09fe (tcp: tcp_sendpages() should call tcp_push() once)
added an internal flag MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST.
We have to ensure that MSG_MORE is also set if we set MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST.
Otherwise users that check against MSG_MORE will not see it.
This fixes sendfile() on AF_ALG.
Cc: Tom Herber
6 matches
Mail list logo
