On 06/30/2011 12:19 PM, Thomas Graf wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:11:06AM -0400, Vladislav Yasevich wrote: >> On 06/30/2011 09:31 AM, Thomas Graf wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:14:41PM -0400, Vladislav Yasevich wrote: >>>> Right. The lack of ABORT from the receive of data is a bug. I was trying to point out >>>> that instead of modified the sender of data to send the ABORT, you modify the receiver >>>> to send the ABORT when it is being closed while having data queued. >>> >>> Is this what you had in mind? >> >> Almost. It could really be a simple true/false condition about recvqueue or inqueue >> being non-empty. If that's the case, trigger abort. > > What would be the advantage of that? > Wrt to true/false, it's simpler to test for non-empty then it is to go through and count the data (but I perfectly ok with either way). WRT to testing the inqueue, as you stated, not everything may be in receive queue. -vlad -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
