The situation is clearer now: the passive-close patches are redundant, but the
problem still exists. A description is below; the three passive-close patches
have been taken out of the test tree and the updated test tree has been
uploaded to
git://eden-feed.erg.abdn.ac.uk/dccp_exp
I ha
| >If you or anyone on the list can create a condition which will
| >lead to "application received data but didn't have a chance to
| >read it", I'd like to hear about it.
|
| ... snip ...
|
| >---
|
|
| If application first queries the message size in the receive buff
>-Original Message-
...snip...
>If you or anyone on the list can create a condition which will
>lead to "application received data but didn't have a chance to
>read it", I'd like to hear about it.
... snip ...
>---
If application first queries the message
After fixing the issue with the leaked-skbs I spent nearly a day trying
to provoke the problem that lead to the following two patches:
[DCCP]: Dedicated auxiliary states to support passive-close
[DCCP]: Basic support for passive-close
[DCCP]: More informative state names
It is almost 8 m
4 matches
Mail list logo
