From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hamish Moffatt Subject: Re: AX.25 Kernel - problem - ax25_sendmsg returns EMSGSIZE ! Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:36:46 +1000 Message-ID: <20071008223646.GC15879@cloud.net.au> References: <47093A4E.5040409@hamradio.hr> <20071008082900.GB24782@cloud.net.au> <470A1035.5070900@hamradio.hr> <20071008134447.GA30451@cloud.net.au> <470A4456.6000703@hamradio.hr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <470A4456.6000703@hamradio.hr> Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:53:10PM +0200, Tihomir Heidelberg - 9a4gl wrote: > Hi, > > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > socket(7) doesn't make any distinction between SOCK_DGRAM and > > SOCK_SEQPACKET with regard to fragmentation. SOCK_SEQPACKET just adds > > reliability and order. > > Hm, socket(2) or (7) ? Both documents do not mention fragmentation. But, > according to socket(2), difference between SOCK_STREAM and > SOCK_SEQPACKET is that first one supports out-of-band data which is not > (easy) doable in AX.25 world. So, it is ok to use SOCK_SEQPACKET for > what we/I call AX.25 connection. Yes I meant socket(2). > What I want is to have SOCK_SEQPACKET reliable, accepting any amount of > data and on write returning number of bytes accepted. I do not care much > if fragmentation will take place or not, but currently I do not see any > reason why not. I think you want SOCK_STREAM. You just want a byte stream which is arbitrarily split into packets; SOCK_DGRAM and SEQPACKET are intended for applications which care about packet boundaries. Since SOCK_STREAM is apparently not so different from SOCK_SEQPACKET, perhaps you could implement it for AX.25? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB