Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-29 Thread 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 03:51:52PM +, David Laight wrote: > From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' > > Sent: 28 January 2016 20:56 > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 05:30:24PM +, David Laight wrote: > > > From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' > > > > Sent: 28 January 2016 15:53 > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at

RE: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-29 Thread David Laight
> From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' [mailto:marcelo.leit...@gmail.com] > Sent: 28 January 2016 20:56 ... > > > But yes, agreed, MSG_MORE is at least a welcomed compliment here, > > > specially for applications generating a train of chunks. Will put that in > > > my ToDo here, thanks. > > > > I've pos

RE: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-29 Thread David Laight
From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' > Sent: 28 January 2016 20:56 ... > > > > 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). > > > > > > I don't follow. You mean if a heartbeat m

RE: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-29 Thread David Laight
From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' > Sent: 28 January 2016 20:56 > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 05:30:24PM +, David Laight wrote: > > From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' > > > Sent: 28 January 2016 15:53 > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:51:02PM +, David Laight wrote: ... > > > > With Nagle disabled (an

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-29 Thread Michael Tuexen
> On 29 Jan 2016, at 12:26, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:57:46AM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: >>> On 29 Jan 2016, at 02:18, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:36:05AM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: > On 28 Jan 2016

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-29 Thread Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:57:46AM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > On 29 Jan 2016, at 02:18, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:36:05AM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: > >> > >>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 22:03, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Th

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-29 Thread Michael Tuexen
> On 29 Jan 2016, at 02:18, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:36:05AM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: >> >>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 22:03, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:54:06PM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: > On 28 Jan 2016, a

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-28 Thread Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:36:05AM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > > On 28 Jan 2016, at 22:03, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:54:06PM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: > >>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 14:51, David Laight wrote: > >>> > >>> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leit

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-28 Thread Michael Tuexen
> On 28 Jan 2016, at 22:03, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:54:06PM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: >>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 14:51, David Laight wrote: >>> >>> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Sent: 27 January 2016 17:07 This patchset is merely a RFC for the

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-28 Thread Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:54:06PM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > On 28 Jan 2016, at 14:51, David Laight 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 dis

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-28 Thread 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 05:30:24PM +, David Laight wrote: > From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' > > Sent: 28 January 2016 15:53 > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:51:02PM +, David Laight wrote: > > > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > > > > Sent: 27 January 2016 17:07 > > > > This patchset is merely a

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-28 Thread Michael Tuexen
> On 28 Jan 2016, at 14:51, David Laight 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

RE: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-28 Thread David Laight
From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' > Sent: 28 January 2016 15:53 > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:51:02PM +, David Laight 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 li

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-28 Thread 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:51:02PM +, David Laight 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 n

RE: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-28 Thread David Laight
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 th

[RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

2016-01-27 Thread Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
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. The points are more detailed in the 3rd patch. Another approach that I can think of, is using something related to what Dave Miller mentioned on the th