Re: so_rerror

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20181108024447.87B3117FDA8%rebar.astron.com@localhost>,
Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost> wrote:
>On Nov 8,  2:29am, roy%marples.name@localhost (Roy Marples) wrote:
>-- Subject: Re: so_rerror
>
>| On 07/11/2018 12:31, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>| > What concerns me is that the unit test t_sendrecv behaves differently
>| > in the presence and absense of SO_RERROR and it should not.
>| 
>| In the presence of SO_RERROR there is an extra context switch to pump 
>| the error to userland. Recall, I prompted you to make this change in 
>| your patch. This effectively causes the receiver to overflow more often 
>| in your test case because it has more work to do. If you revert my 
>| suggestion and always wake up the socket, the chances are that you'll 
>| see similar loss without SO_RERROR as well.
>
>Could be the context switch, but I would expect the regular case to lose
>as well (but more infrequently). Perhaps I need to stress the machine more
>to see that.

And the print for the recv() error case is not firing...

christos