From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Hi Dave, > > Please see inline: > > On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, David Miller wrote: > >> From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran...@gmail.com> >> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT) >> >> > Can I take this to mean that we do need to factor in IP options in >> > the L2TP device MTU setup (i.e approach in the posted patch is okay)? >> > >> > If yes, please let me know if I can keep the socket IP option overhead >> > calculations in a generic function, or it would be better to move it back >> > into >> > L2TP code? >> >> If the user creates and maintains this UDP socket, then yes we have to >> account for potential IP options. >> > > Can I take this to mean that the patch in its present form is > acceptable (patch currently accounts for IP options on the socket)? > Please let me know if any further change is needed (I'll clean up the > krobot reported errors after this). Yes, please respin the patch with the krobot errors fixed.
