From 9bffc4ace1ed875667dbe5b29065d96bec558c62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Neil Horman Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:24:40 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] [SCTP]: Fix sctp to not return erroneous POLLOUT events. Make sctp_writeable() use sk_wmem_alloc rather than sk_wmem_queued to determine the sndbuf space available. It also removes all the modifications to sk_wmem_queued as it is not currently used in SCTP. Signed-off-by: Neil Horman Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- net/sctp/socket.c | 14 +++----------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c index 1f7f244806..9df888e932 100644 --- a/net/sctp/socket.c +++ b/net/sctp/socket.c @@ -156,10 +156,6 @@ static inline void sctp_set_owner_w(struct sctp_chunk *chunk) sizeof(struct sk_buff) + sizeof(struct sctp_chunk); - sk->sk_wmem_queued += SCTP_DATA_SNDSIZE(chunk) + - sizeof(struct sk_buff) + - sizeof(struct sctp_chunk); - atomic_add(sizeof(struct sctp_chunk), &sk->sk_wmem_alloc); } @@ -4426,7 +4422,7 @@ cleanup: * tcp_poll(). Note that, based on these implementations, we don't * lock the socket in this function, even though it seems that, * ideally, locking or some other mechanisms can be used to ensure - * the integrity of the counters (sndbuf and wmem_queued) used + * the integrity of the counters (sndbuf and wmem_alloc) used * in this place. We assume that we don't need locks either until proven * otherwise. * @@ -4833,10 +4829,6 @@ static void sctp_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb) sizeof(struct sk_buff) + sizeof(struct sctp_chunk); - sk->sk_wmem_queued -= SCTP_DATA_SNDSIZE(chunk) + - sizeof(struct sk_buff) + - sizeof(struct sctp_chunk); - atomic_sub(sizeof(struct sctp_chunk), &sk->sk_wmem_alloc); sock_wfree(skb); @@ -4920,7 +4912,7 @@ void sctp_write_space(struct sock *sk) /* Is there any sndbuf space available on the socket? * - * Note that wmem_queued is the sum of the send buffers on all of the + * Note that sk_wmem_alloc is the sum of the send buffers on all of the * associations on the same socket. For a UDP-style socket with * multiple associations, it is possible for it to be "unwriteable" * prematurely. I assume that this is acceptable because @@ -4933,7 +4925,7 @@ static int sctp_writeable(struct sock *sk) { int amt = 0; - amt = sk->sk_sndbuf - sk->sk_wmem_queued; + amt = sk->sk_sndbuf - atomic_read(&sk->sk_wmem_alloc); if (amt < 0) amt = 0; return amt; -- 2.39.5