tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: datagram vs stream sockets

>>> Perhaps the kernel just checks that a frame is consumed before
>>> sending a new one?  Unfortunately I am unaware of such a posibility
>>> with stream sockets.
>> In general, it's not possible.  In the specific case of AF_LOCAL,
>> it's relatively easy, at least within the kernel, because the peer
>> socket is available for direct inspection.
> The question is: do we have any way of doing that from userland?

Probably not at present.  Based on my experience around that code
(including adding AF_TIMER and writing something like puffs back in
'02), it would be relatively easy to add.

> I suspect that just using blocking I/O would fix the problem.

It shouldn't.  Sockets have a nontrivial amount of buffering in them.
(It might conceal the symptom under some circumstances, but that's
hardly the same thing as fixing the problem.)

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

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index