From: Marcelo Ricardo > Sent: 10 September 2015 15:36 ... > > Given that the first ->create() blocks while the protocol code loads > > it really wouldn't be right to error a subsequent ->create() because > > the load hasn't completed. > > Can't say I don't agree with you, but at the same time, there are other > temporary errors that can happen and that the user should just retry. > This would be just another condition in a trade off for avoiding complexity. We do retry, but the delay messes up out test scripts :-( > > I hold a semaphore across sock_create_kern() because of issues with sctp. > > (Current kernels are nowhere near as bad as really old ones though.) > > Oh, that's not good to hear. I'll experiment with that later, try to > catch some bugs. :) I mean REALLY old - like 2.6.12 (FC3). I'm pretty sure I've seen oops as well as create failing. We don't create enough sockets for the semaphore to be a problem. OTOH I've a current problem with a customer using RHEL5.8 (basically 2.6.18). They might manage to move to RHEL6 (2.6.32) - but that could take a year or two. RH might be pulling some of the SCTP fixes, but I doubt they get priority. David -- 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
