From owner-freebsd-net Sat Jul 29 10:56:42 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from silby.com (cb34181-a.mdsn1.wi.home.com [24.14.173.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BAD2937B6F2 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 10:56:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 25932 invoked by uid 1000); 29 Jul 2000 17:56:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Jul 2000 17:56:35 -0000 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:56:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack To: "Justin C. Walker" Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sub-optimal tcp_ouput() performance in the face of ENOBUFS In-Reply-To: <200007291725.KAA11439@scv1.apple.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Justin C. Walker wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2000, at 07:58 PM, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > Hm, I was going to wager that some calling procedure was acting > > differently depending on the return value of tcp_output, but since ENOBUFS > > returns 0, and the error isn't checked anyway. > > Forgive my early-morning density, but I've read this sentence several > times, and it just doesn't look right. Could you try again? I know > there's value in it, but it isn't making it through. > > Regards, > > Justin In the case of ip_output returning ENOBUFS to tcp_output, tcp_output returns 0, even though there's an error. (I guess if the ENOBUFS case was handled properly, 0 would be correct. But for now, it's certainly an error.) But tcp_output returning an error wouldn't matter anyway, since nothing which calls tcp_output actually checks the return value. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message