From owner-freebsd-bugs  Sun Jun 22 10:10:08 1997
Return-Path: <owner-bugs>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA13502
          for bugs-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 10:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA13490;
          Sun, 22 Jun 1997 10:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 10:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199706221710.KAA13490@hub.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs
Cc: 
From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: kern/3925: SO_SNDLOWAT of 0 causes kernel to use 99% of CPU time on TCP send
Reply-To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>
Sender: owner-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

The following reply was made to PR kern/3925; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, peter@spinner.dialix.com.au
Cc:  Subject: Re: kern/3925: SO_SNDLOWAT of 0 causes kernel to use 99% of CPU time on TCP send
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 10:05:35 PDT

 soreserve() is usually only called when creating a new socket.
 
 Sanity-checking 0 is clearly acceptable when doing the setsockopt().
 Since soreserve() silently "fixes" it, perhaps setsockopt() should
 too.  I don't know what to think about sanity-checking in other
 situations.
 
   Bill