From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] Three possible UDP fixes. Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20110621.163122.2184787350829030278.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1308689020-1873-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: paul.gortmaker@windriver.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:42625 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756939Ab1FUXbZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:31:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1308689020-1873-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Paul Gortmaker Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:43:37 -0400 > These were originally found on a 2.6.34 baseline, but I looked > at them and couldn't see any reason why they wouldn't be valid > fixes on net-next. But I'll feel better when someone like > Dave and/or Eric sanity checks them too. > > There was one thing that was a consideration. In the 3rd patch, > where we clear MSG_TRUNC bit -- is there anything in there that > we really need to be concerned about preserving on the retry, > or could we just unconditionally do "msg->msg_flags = 0" ? > I wasn't sure, and so sticking with clearing the offending bit > seemed like the most cautious approach. All applied and queued up for -stable, thanks!