From: Neil Horman
> Sent: 14 October 2019 13:42
> To: Xin Long
> Cc: David Laight ; network dev
> ; linux-s...@vger.kernel.org; Marcelo
> Ricardo Leitner ; da...@davemloft.net
> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 3/5] sctp: add
> SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE sockop
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:36:34PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:18 AM Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:28:32PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM David Laight
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Xin Long
> > > > > Sent: 08 Octob
From: Xin Long
> Sent: 14 October 2019 09:37
...
> RFC actually keeps adding new notifications,
That RFC keeps moving the goalposts.
Even the structures are guaranteed to have holes.
> and a user shouldn't expect
> the specific notifications coming in some exact orders. They should just
> ignore
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:18 AM Neil Horman wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:28:32PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM David Laight wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Xin Long
> > > > Sent: 08 October 2019 12:25
> > > >
> > > > This is a sockopt defined in section 7.3 of rfc78
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 12:25:27AM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:57 PM Xin Long wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:40 PM Neil Horman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:28:34PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:18 AM Neil Horman
> >
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:57 PM Xin Long wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:40 PM Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:28:34PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:18 AM Neil Horman
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:28:32PM +0800, Xin
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:40 PM Neil Horman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:28:34PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:18 AM Neil Horman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:28:32PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM David Laight
> >
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:28:34PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:18 AM Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:28:32PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM David Laight
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Xin Long
> > > > > Sent: 08 Octob
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:18 AM Neil Horman wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:28:32PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM David Laight wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Xin Long
> > > > Sent: 08 October 2019 12:25
> > > >
> > > > This is a sockopt defined in section 7.3 of rfc78
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:28:32PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM David Laight wrote:
> >
> > From: Xin Long
> > > Sent: 08 October 2019 12:25
> > >
> > > This is a sockopt defined in section 7.3 of rfc7829: "Exposing
> > > the Potentially Failed Path State", by which user
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:02 PM David Laight wrote:
>
> From: Xin Long
> > Sent: 08 October 2019 12:25
> >
> > This is a sockopt defined in section 7.3 of rfc7829: "Exposing
> > the Potentially Failed Path State", by which users can change
> > pf_expose per sock and asoc.
>
> If I read these patche
From: Xin Long
> Sent: 08 October 2019 12:25
>
> This is a sockopt defined in section 7.3 of rfc7829: "Exposing
> the Potentially Failed Path State", by which users can change
> pf_expose per sock and asoc.
If I read these patches correctly the default for this sockopt in 'enabled'.
Doesn't this
This is a sockopt defined in section 7.3 of rfc7829: "Exposing
the Potentially Failed Path State", by which users can change
pf_expose per sock and asoc.
Signed-off-by: Xin Long
---
include/uapi/linux/sctp.h | 1 +
net/sctp/socket.c | 76 +++
13 matches
Mail list logo
