Re: TCP_NOPUSH on FreeBSD, TCP_CORK on Linux (was: Is sendfile all that

2001-02-08 Thread Linus Torvalds
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>Tony, are people using the TCP_NOPUSH define as a way to detect >>the presence of T/TCP support? > >No, MSG_EOF is the right way to do that. However, I think ank is at least partially

Re: TCP_NOPUSH on FreeBSD, TCP_CORK on Linux (was: Is sendfile all that

2001-02-07 Thread Tony Finch
Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Tony, are people using the TCP_NOPUSH define as a way to detect >the presence of T/TCP support? No, MSG_EOF is the right way to do that. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] FAIR ISLE: WESTERLY VEERING NORTHERLY 4 OR 5. WINTRY SH

Re: TCP_NOPUSH on FreeBSD, TCP_CORK on Linux (was: Is sendfile all that

2001-02-07 Thread Dan Kegel
Alexy wrote: > > > How close is TCP_NOPUSH to behaving identically to TCP_CORK now? > > They have not so much of common. > > TCP_NOPUSH enables T/TCP and its presense used to mean that > T/TCP is possible on this system. Linux headers cannot > even contain TCP_NOPUSH. But Tony Finch wrote:

Re: TCP_NOPUSH on FreeBSD, TCP_CORK on Linux (was: Is sendfile all that

2001-02-06 Thread kuznet
Hello! > > How close is TCP_NOPUSH to behaving identically to TCP_CORK now? They have not so much of common. TCP_NOPUSH enables T/TCP and its presense used to mean that T/TCP is possible on this system. Linux headers cannot even contain TCP_NOPUSH. Alexey - To unsubscribe from this list: send

Re: TCP_NOPUSH on FreeBSD, TCP_CORK on Linux (was: Is sendfile all that

2001-02-05 Thread Tony Finch
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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

Re: TCP_NOPUSH on FreeBSD, TCP_CORK on Linux (was: Is sendfile all that

2001-02-05 Thread Dan Kegel
Alan Cox wrote: > > > 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

Re: TCP_NOPUSH on FreeBSD, TCP_CORK on Linux (was: Is sendfile all that sexy?)

2001-02-05 Thread Tony Finch
Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >How close is TCP_NOPUSH to behaving identically to TCP_CORK now? They are exactly the same. >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

Re: TCP_NOPUSH on FreeBSD, TCP_CORK on Linux (was: Is sendfile all that

2001-02-05 Thread Alan Cox
> 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 mak