Re: Honoring SO_RCVLOWAT in proto_ops.poll methods

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Alan Cox
Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 1:13 pm

Thats a gloriously insane way of trying to do HTTP/1.1, and one I'm not
sure is actually viable in the real world because the TCP window may be
smaller than the number of bytes required to find a Host: header - so you
may simply not be able to receive it via MSG_PEEK. In particular mobile
phone gateways have a nasty habit of using very small windows.


I don't either, and while I don't agree that what you are doing for
HTTP/1.1 is remotely sane there are probably other cases this would be
both sane and useful which does suggest fixing it would be beneficial
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Honoring SO_RCVLOWAT in proto_ops.poll methods, Alan Cox, (Sun Sep 21, 1:13 pm)
Re: Honoring SO_RCVLOWAT in proto_ops.poll methods, David Miller, (Mon Sep 22, 5:15 am)
Re: Honoring SO_RCVLOWAT in proto_ops.poll methods, David Miller, (Sun Oct 5, 1:27 pm)
Re: Honoring SO_RCVLOWAT in proto_ops.poll methods, David Miller, (Sun Oct 5, 3:30 pm)
Re: Honoring SO_RCVLOWAT in proto_ops.poll methods, David Miller, (Mon Oct 6, 10:18 am)
Re: Honoring SO_RCVLOWAT in proto_ops.poll methods, David Miller, (Mon Oct 6, 10:45 am)
Re: Honoring SO_RCVLOWAT in proto_ops.poll methods, David Miller, (Mon Oct 13, 12:34 am)
Re: Honoring SO_RCVLOWAT in proto_ops.poll methods, David Miller, (Mon Oct 13, 2:58 am)
Re: Honoring SO_RCVLOWAT in proto_ops.poll methods, David Miller, (Sun Oct 19, 9:25 pm)
Re: Honoring SO_RCVLOWAT in proto_ops.poll methods, David Miller, (Wed Nov 5, 4:36 am)