Hi,

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 02:51:22PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
quoted text
> Em Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:26:58AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler escreveu:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > <acme@ghostprotocols.net> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > I.e. recvmmsg would save the value of sk->sk_rcvtimeo at entry and
> > > restore at exit, and would somehow go on subtracting the time
> > > sock_recvmsg() took from it so that the following call finds a reduced
> > > sk->sk_rcvtimeo iif it was configured in the first place and the socket
> > > is in blocking mode.
> > >
> > > How does that sound?
> > >
> > 
> > I suspect that an additional timeout value will be needed ultimately.
> 
> So you mean we need a timeout to wait for a datagram, that remains being
> sk->sk_rcvtimeo (SO_RCVTIMEO), and one that is passed as a parameter to
> recvmmsg?
>
The other thing which might also need looking at is the low water mark,
should that apply to each individual message, or to all the received messages
in combination? I think the latter is more useful.

Steve.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html