Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:45:13 -0600 (CST) | From | Paul Cassella <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.0-ac3 write() to tcp socket returning errno of -3 (ESRCH: "No such process") |
| |
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Paul Cassella wrote:
> and mss_now seems to be less than skb->len when the printk happens. My > copy of K&R is at work; could that comparison be being done unsigned > because of skb->len? I wouldn't think so, but the alternative seems > somewhat worse...
That'll teach me to post about integral promotions ...
> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s:%d:%s: err is unexpectedly %d.\n", file, line, func, ret);
... and hand-edit patches before breakfast.
I'm not familiar enough with the tcp code to know if this patch (against -ac6) is a solution, band-aid, or, in fact, wrong, but I've run with it (on -ac3) and haven't seen the errors for over twelve hours, which is three times longer than it had been able to go without it coming up.
--- tcp.c.orig Thu Jan 11 08:54:50 2001 +++ tcp.c Thu Jan 11 08:56:42 2001 @@ -954,7 +954,7 @@ */ skb = sk->write_queue.prev; if (tp->send_head && - (mss_now - skb->len) > 0) { + (signed int)(mss_now - skb->len) > 0) { copy = skb->len; if (skb_tailroom(skb) > 0) { int last_byte_was_odd = (copy % 4);
Or would this be better?
+ (unsigned int)mss_now > skb->len) { Or making mss_now unsigned in the first place?
-- Paul Cassella
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |