On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:51:42PM -0400, Eric Paris (eparis@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > For some things yes, some things no. I'd have to understand where loss > can happen to know if it's feasible. If I know loss happens in the > sender context that's great. If it's somewhere in the middle and the > sender doesn't immediately know it'll never be delivered, yes, I don't > think it can solve all my needs. How many places can and skb get lost > between the sender and the receiver? When queue is full or you do not have enough RAM. Both are reported at 'sending' time. As of your description of netlink/socket usage - you will have to peek skb queue, which is rather error-prone operation. Also you will have to implement own skb destructor to mess with private reference counters and netlink bits. -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
