[nanomsg] Re: NN_SNDBUF on inproc
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:57:41 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Steve,
IIRC POSIX specifies that one of the options (SNDBUF or RCVBUF) is
ignored when applied to IPC socket. There's only one buffer under the
covers anyway.
Anyway, feel free to have a look at it. I may be wrong.
Martin
On 08/10/14 15:42, Steve Vinoski wrote:
> I'm wondering why the inproc transport doesn't support NN_SNDBUF?
> Seems like all the machinery to check the queue size and return
> EAGAIN if there's no room is already in place, and so just wiring
> the setting of the NN_SNDBUF option value into the already-existing
> variable, overwriting the default 128k, would make it work.
>
> I'm happy to go create a pull request for this, but wanted to
> check first to make sure there's not some design decision I'm
> overlooking.
>
> thanks, --steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUNULVAAoJENTpVjxCNN9Y1+EH+wUetjx1FMF3dIxfJB17yMZ9
ssWbOQ+bbrbTzSfCrQSBa6yCd82nq+gY6Btq6UCqNvTl99b8VcG0eFoYsgrS4dcL
HwgJlXaXLBdlcFRjVt2vXCDH9UQavCHfyTO3FnC/Fh97RlBfld90dlstspoXb2TW
cHIfr7P3nQ9Wc1tg5B7tjaOj816bjcq5XUAfA+ne6YmsjN5WHn8R4ci/y5sYPU8p
+Sblh3cxYo/ioeZhcQFIMYyMhAPRNEluUg0du09trr6E46qplBah5q+YTAtSJq7I
CPqH67NwCNd7bC5nvp4tPYdztyAJ45vIv6HT9FjtxcLMc32jK6Tr6XSjqioS55M=
=Bqd9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Other related posts:
