On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:40:10PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>
> The networking stack DID receive the packet. Just because a socket
> owner is busy doing something else or blocked on some other event
> is no excuse not to bump the InDataGgrams counter.
Actually if we ever implement the memory reclaim stuff for UDP
when we're short on system memory then it could be possible for
us to want to remove packets that are sitting on a socket's rcv
queue. In that case it would be nice if InDataGrams wasn't
incremented until the app took the packet off the socket.
In any case, I just looked up RFC1213 and it says:
udpInDatagrams OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Counter
ACCESS read-only
STATUS mandatory
DESCRIPTION
"The total number of UDP datagrams delivered to
UDP users."
::= { udp 1 }
So I think incrementing it in recvmsg is acceptable.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
