Subject: Re: Netchannles: first stage has been completed. Further ideas.

From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:39:09 +0400

On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 02:19:55AM -0700, David Miller ([email-masked]) wrote:
> From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:06:11 +0400
> 
> > Receiving side, nor matter if it is socket or netchannel, will drop
> > packets (socket due to queue overfull, netchannels will not drop, but
> > will not ack (it's maximum queue len is 1mb)).
> > 
> > So both approaches behave _exactly_ the same.
> > Did I miss something?
> 
> Socket will not drop the packets on receive because sender will not
> violate the window which receiver advertises, therefore there is no
> reason to drop the packets.

How come?
sk_stream_rmem_schedule(), sk_rmem_alloc and friends...

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov