From f43604ca388341b16d47437b7508cf2770a6e245 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: patacongo <patacongo@42af7a65-404d-4744-a932-0658087f49c3>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:15:12 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Add UDP poll issue

git-svn-id: svn://svn.code.sf.net/p/nuttx/code/trunk@1279 42af7a65-404d-4744-a932-0658087f49c3
---
 TODO | 16 +++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index 2f85472e27..b6d2cd00bd 100644
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ NuttX TODO List (Last updated November 17, 2008)
   (1)  Signals (sched/, arch/)
   (1)  pthreads (sched/)
   (1)  C++ Support
- (12)  Network (net/, netutils/)
+ (14)  Network (net/, netutils/)
   (1)  USB (drivers/usbdev)
   (4)  Libraries (lib/)
   (6)  File system/Generic drivers (fs/, drivers/)
@@ -206,6 +206,20 @@ o Network (net/, netutils/)
   Status:      Open
   Priority:    Low
 
+  Description: TCP supports read-ahead buffering to handle the receipt of
+               TCP/IP packets when there is no read() in place.  Should such
+               capability be useful for UDP?  PRO: Would reduce packet loss
+               and enable support for poll()/select().  CON: UDP is inherently
+               lossy so why waste memory footprint?
+  Status:      Open
+  Priority:    Medium
+
+  Description: poll()/select is not implement for UDP sockets because they do
+               do not support read-ahead buffering.  Therefore, there is never
+               a case where you can read from a UDP socket without blocking.
+  Status:      Open, depends on UDP read-ahead support
+  Priority:    Medium
+
 o USB (drivers/usbdev)
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
-- 
GitLab