Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 03:08:21 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Andrew <andrew@ugh.net.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: select, sendto and ENOBUFS Message-ID: <20040211030445.A1798@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20040210111013.G56192-100000@starbug.ugh.net.au> References: <20040210111013.G56192-100000@starbug.ugh.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Andrew wrote: > The conclusion being that send, sendto and select will never block on a > UDP socket and the man page just doesn't make it too clear. I'm assuming > it is the same for raw sockets. > > UNPv1 section 6.3 seems to say that select should work for UDP...Part 2 > under "Under What Conditions Is a Descriptor Ready" certainly indicates > that select should work. > > Anyway a bug or not, is there a better work around than sleeping? I'm > guessing not... > > Thanks, > > Andrew Well, one workaround would be to figure out a way to have the kernel implement the behavior you desire. :) I doubt that anyone will put effort into this problem soon; it looks like it would be quite a large change to the network stack, and we all have plenty of projects to work on. Maybe you could figure out where in the kernel the ENOBUFS is occuring, and then add a tsleep which would be woken when the transmit queue cleared a bit. That would introduce unexpected blocking, but I can't imagine that waiting for a few packets to exit the queue would take much time. Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040211030445.A1798>