>> @@ -169,14 +169,20 @@ struct sk_buff *__skb_try_recv_from_queue(struct sock
>> *sk, int *peeked, int *off, int *err, struct sk_buff **last)
>> {
>> + bool peek_at_off = false;
>> struct sk_buff *skb;
>> - int _off = *off;
>> + int _off = 0;
>> +
>> + if (flags & MSG_PEEK && (*off) >= 0) {
>> + peek_at_off = true;
>> + _off = *off;
>> + }
>>
>> *last = queue->prev;
>> skb_queue_walk(queue, skb) {
>> if (flags & MSG_PEEK) {
>> - if (_off >= skb->len && (skb->len || _off ||
>> - skb->peeked)) {
>> + if (peek_at_off && _off >= skb->len &&
>> + (skb->len || _off || skb->peeked)) {
> ^ I'm pretty sure we can remove this check
> (that skb->len is not zero) in this if statement. If _off is zero, then skb-
>>len must also be zero (since _off >= skb->len, if _off is 0, skb->len <= 0.
> If skb->len can't be negative, then skb->len <= 0 => skb->len == 0). If _off
> is not zero, then checking skb->len is redundant.
Good point.
>> _off -= skb->len;
>> continue;
>> }
> Is this queued to go in already? Or can I help by updating my patch with what
> was discussed here? I can do that today if wanted.
It isn't. Please do if no one else has additional comments.
