Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with that. Generally speaking it seems like the right > thing to do, if you want to avoid filling logs with warnings, but this is the > sort of error that is going to be accompanied by severe service interruption. > I'd rather see a reason behind that in the logs, than just have it occur > silently.
Its not silent -- the setsockopt call will fail and userspace should display an error. So I agree with Marcelo, lets suppress the oom spew here.
