From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759278Ab3BNLGH (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:06:07 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48989 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752750Ab3BNLGF (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:06:05 -0500 Message-ID: <511CC511.7080902@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:05:53 +0100 From: Gerd Hoffmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130108 Thunderbird/10.0.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy King CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, pv-drivers@vmware.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] VSOCK: Introduce VM Sockets References: <1360196636-9357-1-git-send-email-acking@vmware.com> <1360196636-9357-2-git-send-email-acking@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <1360196636-9357-2-git-send-email-acking@vmware.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/07/13 01:23, Andy King wrote: > + written = transport->stream_enqueue( > + vsk, msg->msg_iov, > + len - total_written); Hmm, shouldn't we pass total_written to stream_enqueue here? In case a blocking send(big-buffer) call gets splitted into multiple stream_enqueue calls the second (and further) stream_enqueue calls need to know at which msg offset they should continue sending the data, no? cheers, Gerd