Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation [try #2]

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Alan Cox <alan@...>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...>, <davem@...>, <netdev@...>, <herbert.xu@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <hch@...>, <arjan@...>
Date: Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 2:32 am

On Mar 16, 2007, at 10:11:41, Alan Cox wrote:

IMHO the problem with classifying RxRPC as a "reliable datagram"  
socket is that even an atomic unidirectional communication isn't a  
single datagram, it's at least 3; there is shared connection state  
and security context on both sides which pertains to a collection of  
independent and possibly simultaneous RxRPC calls.  From the digging  
around that I did in the kernel socket code a while ago I don't see a  
cleaner way of implementing it than a new SOCK_RXRPC.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation ..., Kyle Moffett, (Sun Mar 18, 2:32 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Mar 16, 9:40 am)
Re: [PATCH 2/5] AF_RXRPC: Move generic skbuff stuff from XFR..., Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Mar 16, 9:36 am)
Re: [PATCH 4/5] AF_RXRPC: Key facility changes for AF_RXRPC ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Mar 16, 9:38 am)
Re: [PATCH 1/5] AF_RXRPC: Add blkcipher accessors for using ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Mar 16, 9:32 am)