Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > I don't understand the issue.
> >
> > sendfile() returns -EAGAIN only if no bytes were copied to the socket.
>
> There is something wrong/unexpected/...
>
> I have a program which can use either sendfile or send.
On 02/25/2013 09:22 AM, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> When using sendfile with a non-blocking output file descriptor for a
> socket the operation can cause a partial write because of capacity
> issues. This is nothing critical and the operation could resume after
> the output queue is cleared. The prob
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> Using non blocking IO means the sender (and the receiver) must be able
> to perform several operations, as long as the whole transfert is not
> finished.
Certainly, and this is implemented. But the receiver never gets the
rest of the data
On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 20:41 -0500, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > I don't understand the issue.
> >
> > sendfile() returns -EAGAIN only if no bytes were copied to the socket.
>
> There is something wrong/unexpected/...
>
> I have a program which
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I don't understand the issue.
>
> sendfile() returns -EAGAIN only if no bytes were copied to the socket.
There is something wrong/unexpected/...
I have a program which can use either sendfile or send. When using
sendfile to transmit a large
On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 12:22 -0500, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> When using sendfile with a non-blocking output file descriptor for a
> socket the operation can cause a partial write because of capacity
> issues. This is nothing critical and the operation could resume after
> the output queue is cleared
6 matches
Mail list logo
