Re: New class of receive error

[Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost>]

I want to be clear - I’m not objecting to the behavior... just the default-ness.  Make it optional, and fail-to-enable on sockets where it doesn’t make sense and I’m good!

-- thorpej
Sent from my iPhone.

> On May 13, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Michael van Elst <mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 05:40:30PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
>> 
>> By other OS's I mean AIX, HPUX, Solaris and the POSIX specificaition?
>> I stopped checking others at this point but it's clearly not just Linux.
> 
> None of these report ENOBUFS when the sender fails. Mostly because
> the receiver has no information whether that happened or not.
> 
> 
>> Then I thought - route(4) behaviour shouldn't be anything special.
> 
> But it is special. The only case where you have a model (i.e. Linux NETLINK).
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>                                Michael van Elst
> Internet: mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost
>                                "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."