Subject: Re: fixing send(2) semantics (kern/29750)
To: None <>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: tech-kern
Date: 03/27/2005 02:04:59
> You get ENOBUFS, which SUS says you should not get with blocking I/O.

Yes, I think this needs fixing.  But pushing blocking behaviour down to
the link layer does not sound to me like the right way to fix it.

> If we consider that what SUS does not talk about what happens in the
> link layer, then IMO, we should let the link layer drop packets
> without returning ENOBUFS.

We could.  But I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer to continue to return
ENOBUFS as a hint to the upper layer, a hint which UDP sockets would
throw away but which other upper layers, things like the TCP stack
maybe, might do something useful with.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B