> Since this is UDP, I'm not sure much should be done, perhaps
> just document the return value, but honestly since it's _U_DP
exactly -- documenting is the only thing we can do.
There are far too many apps that might break if we
change this behaviour.
Ideally one could add a setsockopt to implement a truly blocking
behaviour on sockets where there is not an explicit underlying flow
control scheme, but flow control info can still be derived by other
means.
> it could just easily fail silently as long as local datagrams
> are allowed to be lossy.
i am not much concerned about this, but rather by the fact that
those apps which want to send as fast as possible have no
better way than looping around a non-blocking call, whereas
it would be much more efficient to pass signals up.
Next life...
cheers
luigi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
