On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:51:42PM -0400, Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com) wrote:

For some things yes, some things no.  I'd have to understand where loss
can happen to know if it's feasible.  If I know loss happens in the
sender context that's great.  If it's somewhere in the middle and the
sender doesn't immediately know it'll never be delivered, yes, I don't
think it can solve all my needs.  How many places can and skb get lost
between the sender and the receiver?

When queue is full or you do not have enough RAM. Both are reported at
'sending' time.

As of your description of netlink/socket usage - you will have to peek
skb queue, which is rather error-prone operation. Also you will have to
implement own skb destructor to mess with private reference counters and
netlink bits.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov