From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerd Hoffmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] VSOCK: Introduce VM Sockets Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:05:53 +0100 Message-ID: <511CC511.7080902@redhat.com> References: <1360196636-9357-1-git-send-email-acking@vmware.com> <1360196636-9357-2-git-send-email-acking@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pv-drivers@vmware.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, davem@davemloft.net To: Andy King Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1360196636-9357-2-git-send-email-acking@vmware.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.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