From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] networking/fanotify: declare fanotify socket numbers Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:41:10 +0400 Message-ID: <20090912094110.GB24709@ioremap.net> References: <20090911052558.32359.18075.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <20090911.114620.260824240.davem@davemloft.net> <1252697613.2305.38.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> <20090911204602.GA19371@shareable.org> <1252703626.2305.50.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> <20090911212731.GA19901@shareable.org> <1252705902.2305.83.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jamie Lokier , David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, alan@linux.intel.com, hch@infradead.org To: Eric Paris Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1252705902.2305.83.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:51:42PM -0400, Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com) wrote: > For some things yes, some things no. I'd have to understand where loss > can happen to know if it's feasible. If I know loss happens in the > sender context that's great. If it's somewhere in the middle and the > sender doesn't immediately know it'll never be delivered, yes, I don't > think it can solve all my needs. How many places can and skb get lost > between the sender and the receiver? When queue is full or you do not have enough RAM. Both are reported at 'sending' time. As of your description of netlink/socket usage - you will have to peek skb queue, which is rather error-prone operation. Also you will have to implement own skb destructor to mess with private reference counters and netlink bits. -- Evgeniy Polyakov