From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263800AbUBRInX (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:43:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263632AbUBRInX (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:43:23 -0500 Received: from test.estpak.ee ([194.126.115.47]:5629 "EHLO arena.estpak.ee") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263800AbUBRInW convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:43:22 -0500 From: Hasso Tepper To: davids@webmaster.com Subject: Re: raw sockets and blocking Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:43:12 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 Cc: "Linux Kernel" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Organization: Elion Enterprises Ltd. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200402181043.12913.hasso@estpak.ee> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Schwartz wrote: > > I'm guessing the driver or network layer is > > blocking the socket because it is waiting for the link to come > > back, however would it not be better to discard the packet, > > especially a raw packet? > > If you want to discard the packet, you do it. Why should the > kernel accept a packet just to discard it if it's smart enough to > not accept it? >>From "man sendmsg" in Debian unstable (manpage is dated 2003-10-25). ENOBUFS The output queue for a network interface was full. This generally indicates that the interface has stopped sending, but may be caused by transient congestion. (Normally, this does not occur in Linux. Packets are just silently dropped when a device queue overflows.) -- Hasso Tepper Elion Enterprises Ltd. WAN administrator