On 07:13, Gerrit Renker wrote: > honestly, I have been unable to reproduce the bug, but there is a point > in what you said regarding the CCID-split patch. In fact, you identified > a real bug. > > I have looked at your application: > * the server listens, accepts and > * then writes to the client > > This is bi-directional mode. In TCP no problem. In DCCP that patch > has disabled bidirectional mode since at that time there were > strange interactions. This explains why the bug is also present in yesterday's Davem's tree, even with your two patches from yesterday applied. > In short: the only mode that is currently supported is > * server listens, accepts > * and only reads > o client connects and > o only writes > > That works with the test applications (ttcp and iperf) since this is > exactly the way they operate. But it constrains socket programming. Yes, I tried yesterday to reproduce the bug with ttcp but wasn't able to do so. > Can you confirm that, when the `culprit' patch is reverted (as per > the first email), the bug disappears? I double-checked this before sending the first mail, but I also will try the patch you sent today and report tomorrow. > In any way, thanks a lot for identifying this obvious restriction, > this has been a great help. You're welcome. > I think it is great that real applications appear and I would like to > use this paraslash application. Feel free to ask questions, or send patches :) > If there are any other problems, please > do email to this list. Will do. This was really the first problem I had with dccp. I implemented paraslash's dccp sender/receiver in March 2006 and it worked very well from the first day on. There have been only minor changes to this code since then. Andre -- The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
