Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:46:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: "Justin C. Walker" <justin@apple.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sub-optimal tcp_ouput() performance in the face of ENOBUFS Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007291528280.26271-100000@achilles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <200007291810.LAA14583@scv2.apple.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Justin C. Walker wrote: > On Saturday, July 29, 2000, at 10:56 AM, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > > 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. > > Thanks for the clarification. > > FWIW in our source (FB3.2-based), while a lot of calls are cast as (void), > the returned error actually is checked in a number of places > (tcp_usrreq.c). These eventually wander back into user space, I think. > > Regards, > > Justin Yep, you're correct. I must've been tired when I grepped last night. Do you guys handle ip_output returning ENOBUFS any differently/better in Darwin as of now? Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007291528280.26271-100000>