[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 mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |