On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:54:06PM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > On 28 Jan 2016, at 14:51, David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com> wrote: > > > > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > >> Sent: 27 January 2016 17:07 > >> This patchset is merely a RFC for the moment. There are some > >> controversial points that I'd like to discuss before actually proposing > >> the patches. > > > > You also need to look at how a 'user' can actually get SCTP to > > merge data chunks in the first place. > > > > With Nagle disabled (and it probably has to be since the data flow > > is unlikely to be 'command-response' or 'unidirectional bulk') > > it is currently almost impossible to get more than one chunk > > into an ethernet frame. > > > > Support for MSG_MORE would help. > What about adding support for the explicit EOR mode as specified in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6458#section-8.1.26
Seizing the moment to clarify my understanding on that. :) Such multiple calls to send system calls will result in a single data chunk. Is that so? That's what I get from that text and also from this snippet: "Sending a message using sendmsg() is atomic unless explicit end of record (EOR) marking is enabled on the socket specified by sd (see Section 8.1.26)." Best regards, Marcelo > Best regards > Michael > > > > Given the current implementation you can get almost the required > > behaviour by turning nagle off and on repeatedly. > > > > I did wonder whether the queued data could actually be picked up > > be a Heartbeat chunk that is probing a different remote address > > (which would be bad news). > > > > David > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in > > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > >
