[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Improve behaviour of Netlink Sockets

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve behaviour of Netlink Sockets
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:30:51 +1000
Cc: Pablo Neira <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1096424914.1043.103.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20040927213607.GD7243@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1096339407.8660.33.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040928024614.GA9911@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1096340772.8659.51.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040928032321.GB10116@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1096343125.8661.96.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040928035921.GA10675@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1096367787.8662.146.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4159D278.4060809@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1096424914.1043.103.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 10:28:34PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> Being able to prioritize control (errors and ACKs) would be valuable.
> Would require mucking around with the socket queue. 
> Something along what we do for a basic default 3 band queue (proabably
> two band in this case) should work.

Obviously neither of you have taken my tip :)

You should never use your unicast socket to receive multicast messages.
Otherwise you get to keep both pieces when it breaks.
Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>