:What do you picture the protocol side doing in response to this message?
:Currently, the process side will be woken up when e.g. new data arrives or
:the connection state changes etc. But to decide if anything changed since
:the message was sent, the protocol essentially needs to know what the process
:side "knew" when it sent the message. So we need to send a message which
:includes a pointer to, say:
:
:struct socksnap {
: int state;
: int rcvdata;
:};
:
:Is that what you had in mind?
:
:Aggelos
I think almost all such messages could simply use a specific callback
that checks for a specific set of conditions. For example, if the
reader blocks it is simply waiting for an unblocking condition such
as data present in the sockbuf or an EOF/disconnect condition.
The most complex case might be something used by the atomic record
code or the HTTP filter code, where data is present in the sockbuf but
the reader wants to wait for more. In that case a single field could
be supplied, aka the disred wbytes target.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>| Parag Warudkar | BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 15s! [swapper:0] |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 010/196] Chinese: add translation of Codingstyle |
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 24/37] dccp: Processing Confirm options |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Alexey Dobriyan | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| david | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
