2024-02-21, 10:33:30 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:59:40 +0100 Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > It's not exactly enough, since tls_record_content_type will return 0 > > on a content type mismatch. We'll have to translate that into an > > "error". > > Ugh, that's unpleasant. > > > I think it would be a bit nicer to set err=1 and then check > > err != 0 in tls_sw_recvmsg (we can document that in a comment above > > process_rx_list) rather than making up a fake errno. See diff [1]. > > > > Or we could swap the 0/1 returns from tls_record_content_type and > > switch the err <= 0 tests to err != 0 after the existing calls, then > > process_rx_list doesn't have a weird special case [2]. > > > > What do you think? > > I missed the error = 1 case, sorry. No strong preference, then. > Checking for error = 1 will be as special as the new rx_more > flag. Should I apply this version as is, then? If you're ok with that version, sure. Thanks. -- Sabrina
