Subject: Re: fixing send(2) semantics (kern/29750)
To: None <tech-kern@NetBSD.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B