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
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 about what
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
a...@ghostprotocols.net
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. :-)
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 I
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
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
a...@ghostprotocols.net wrote:
Em Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:06:04PM +, David Laight escreveu:
From: 'Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo'
...
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
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
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
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
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.
> >
> > >
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
> >
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
should be run
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 application
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 an EINTR
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 data has
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 success with a
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 discussed).
My
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 which errors on
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
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
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
> > >
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
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
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)
>>>
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
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 all
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
a...@ghostprotocols.net wrote:
Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk
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
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 remaining
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
returns the number
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)
>>>
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
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
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.
>
>>>
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.
recvmmsg() now
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
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
a...@ghostprotocols.net 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 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
a...@ghostprotocols.net wrote:
Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk
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
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
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
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 timeout
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
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 a...@kernel.org
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
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)
escreveu:
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,
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo a...@kernel.org
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()
Em Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:00:55PM -0400, David Miller escreveu:
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo a...@kernel.org
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.
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,
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, the timeout has
56 matches
Mail list logo
