Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:56:35 -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.4.21.0007291253310.25923-100000@achilles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <200007291725.KAA11439@scv1.apple.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007291253310.25923-100000>