> > And is anyone working on a better patch?
>
> I have no idea.
>
> > Those patches aren't "bad" in the correctness sense. So IMO any one
> > of them is better, than having that bug in there.
>
> You're adding a very serious performance regression, which is
> about as bad as the bug itself.
No, correctness always trumps performance. Lost packets on an AF_UNIX
socket are _unexceptable_, and this is definitely not a theoretical
problem.
And BTW my second patch does _not_ have the performance problems you
are arguing about, it's just plain ugly. But hey, if you can't live
with ugly code, go and fix it.
> It can wait for a more appropriate fix.
Now _please_ be a bit more constructive.
Do you want me to send the patch to Andrew instead? His attitude
towards bugfixes is rather better ;)
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
