From: Rainer Weikusat
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 21:24:17 +
> David Miller writes:
>> So with your patch, the "N * timeout" behavior, where N is the number
>> of queues reading threads, no longer occurs? Do they all now properly
>> get released at the appropriate timeout?
>
> As far as I can t
On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 21:24 +, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> As far as I can tell, yes. With the change, unix_dgram_recvmsg has a
> read loop looking like this:
>
> last = NULL; /* not really necessary */
I am not sure SO_RCVTIMEO is really used for af_unix, given its poor
reaction to sysc
David Miller writes:
> From: Rainer Weikusat
>> Rainer Weikusat writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Insofar I understand the comment in this code block correctly,
[...]
>>> /* recvmsg() in non blocking mode is supposed to return
>>> -EAGAIN
>>> * sk_rcvtimeo is not h
From: Rainer Weikusat
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:02:33 +
> Rainer Weikusat writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> Insofar I understand the comment in this code block correctly,
>>
>> err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->readlock);
>> if (unlikely(err)) {
>> /* recvmsg() in non
Rainer Weikusat writes:
[...]
> Insofar I understand the comment in this code block correctly,
>
> err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->readlock);
> if (unlikely(err)) {
> /* recvmsg() in non blocking mode is supposed to return
> -EAGAIN
> * sk_rcv
This will probably earn me a reputation as the most single-minded
monomaniac on this planet (insofar there's still anything to earn in
this respect) but this issue has been irking me "ever since".
NB: This is somewhat loser formatted than a proper patch submission in
order to explain the backgroun
