From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: POLLPRI/poll() behavior change since 2.6.31 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:31:45 +0100 Message-ID: <1294407105.3306.32.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <20110106155040.GA27769@libre.l.ngdn.org> <1294332929.3074.49.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Leonardo Chiquitto , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" To: Davide Libenzi Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:63179 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752728Ab1AGNbv (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2011 08:31:51 -0500 Received: by wyb28 with SMTP id 28so17381765wyb.19 for ; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 05:31:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 =C3=A0 14:40 -0800, Davide Libenzi a =C3=A9cri= t : > On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Eric Dumazet wrote: >=20 > > Hmm, this is because sock_def_readable() uses : > >=20 > > wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&wq->wait, POLLIN | POLLRDNORM | > > POLLRDBAND); > >=20 > > So POLLPRI bit is not signaled.=20 > >=20 > > I would just add POLLPRI flag in sock_def_readable() > >=20 > > (Alternatively, define a tcp_def_readable() function to pass POLLPR= I > > only if TCP_URG is set, but is it worth the pain for a seldom used > > feature ?) >=20 > It would be kinda cleaner though, /me thinks. >=20 Yep, we'll do this in net-next-2.6 for 2.6.39 :) Thanks !