[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 10/13] xen/pvcalls: implement recvmsg
> + > +int pvcalls_front_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t > len, > + int flags) > +{ > + struct pvcalls_bedata *bedata; > + int ret; > + struct sock_mapping *map; > + > + if (flags & (MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC|MSG_ERRQUEUE|MSG_OOB|MSG_TRUNC)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + pvcalls_enter(); > + if (!pvcalls_front_dev) { > + pvcalls_exit(); > + return -ENOTCONN; > + } > + bedata = dev_get_drvdata(&pvcalls_front_dev->dev); > + > + map = (struct sock_mapping *) sock->sk->sk_send_head; > + if (!map) { > + pvcalls_exit(); > + return -ENOTSOCK; > + } > + > + mutex_lock(&map->active.in_mutex); > + if (len > XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE(PVCALLS_RING_ORDER)) > + len = XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE(PVCALLS_RING_ORDER); > + > + while (!(flags & MSG_DONTWAIT) && !pvcalls_front_read_todo(map)) { > + wait_event_interruptible(map->active.inflight_conn_req, > + pvcalls_front_read_todo(map)); > + } > + ret = __read_ring(map->active.ring, &map->active.data, > + &msg->msg_iter, len, flags); > + > + if (ret > 0) > + notify_remote_via_irq(map->active.irq); > + if (ret == 0) > + ret = -EAGAIN; Why not 0? The manpage says: EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK The socket is marked nonblocking and the receive operation would block, or a receive timeout had been set and the timeout expired before data was received. POSIX.1 allows either error to be returned for this case, and does not require these constants to have the same value, so a portable application should check for both possibilities. I don't think either of these conditions is true here. (Again, should have noticed this earlier, sorry) -boris > + if (ret == -ENOTCONN) > + ret = 0; > + > + mutex_unlock(&map->active.in_mutex); > + pvcalls_exit(); > + return ret; > +} _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |