Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 10:54:15 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Mark Delany <c2h@romeo.emu.st> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? Message-ID: <20160104085415.GS3625@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20160103214720.72014.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net> References: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1601031833130.84701@localhost.my.domain> <1451841004.10139.34.camel@me.com> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1601031744040.20884@fledge.watson.org> <CAJ-Vmomxcn%2BiYJAzNViL8WnepsCihrkTuHd8=0O6vONKsTExCA@mail.gmail.com> <20160103214720.72014.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:47:20PM +0000, Mark Delany wrote: > Eg, if a signal arrives after > more than zero packets have been processed by recvmmsg() what is the > correct return value? -1 or the count of messages returned? This is really not a question to consider different answers. Unix already made a (right, IMO) decision there, e.g. for read(2) syscall. If any data was actually read, the length of the consumed data must be returned, and not the error. Typically, socket functions return error on the next call, if the current call must still return data. This is why so_error is there.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160104085415.GS3625>