Tony Finch wrote: > > Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>Without proper uncorking (and it really shouldn't be that hard to > >>add), TCP_NOPUSH simply can't be used in the generic sense. > > > >It was easy :-) I've put up a patch for FreeBSD that adds proper > >uncorking on my homepage <http://apache.org/~fanf/> in the "Stuff" > >section. > > ... and it has been committed to -CURRENT, too. How very cool. How close is TCP_NOPUSH to behaving identically to TCP_CORK now? If it does behave identically, it might be time to standardize the symbolic name for this option, to make apps more portable between the two OS's. (It'd be nice to also standardize the numeric value, in the interest of making the ABI's more compatible, too.) Here are the definitions in the two OS's at the moment: FreeBSD: netinet/tcp.h (from http://minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au/FreeBSD-srctree/newsrc/netinet/tcp.h.html#TCP_NOPUSH ) /* * User-settable options (used with setsockopt). */ #define TCP_NODELAY 0x01 /* don't delay send to coalesce packets */ #define TCP_MAXSEG 0x02 /* set maximum segment size */ #define TCP_NOPUSH 0x04 /* don't push last block of write */ Linux: netinet/tcp.h: /* * User-settable options (used with setsockopt). */ #define TCP_NODELAY 0x01 /* don't delay send to coalesce packets */ #define TCP_MAXSEG 0x02 /* set maximum segment size */ #define TCP_CORK 0x03 /* control sending of partial frames */ - Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
