From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 18:05:35 -0300 > But after thinking a bit more, looks like we need to do that, please > take a look at the attached patch to see if it addresses the problem. > > Mostly it adds a new timeop to the per protocol recvmsg() > implementations, that, if not NULL, should be used instead of > SO_RCVTIMEO. > > since the underlying recvmsg implementations already check that timeout, > return what is remaining, that will then be used in subsequent recvmsg > calls, at the end we just convert it back to timespec format. > > In most cases it is just passed to skb_recv_datagram, that will check > the pointer, use it and update if not NULL. > > Should have no problems, but I only did a boot with a system with this > patch applied, no problems noticed on a normal desktop session, ssh, > etc. This looks fine to me, but I have a small request: + return noblock ? 0 : timeop ? *timeop : sk->sk_rcvtimeo; I keep forgetting which way these expressions associate, so if you could parenthesize the innermost ?: I'd appreciate it. :) Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
