On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:21:04AM -0400, Soheil Hassas Yeganeh wrote:
>> Could you please submit the timestamping patches separately as non RFCs?
>> Thanks!
> Agree. I will re-spin.
Great, thank you very much!
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:21:04AM -0400, Soheil Hassas Yeganeh wrote:
> Could you please submit the timestamping patches separately as non RFCs?
> Thanks!
Agree. I will re-spin.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> When a tcp skb is sliced into two smaller skbs (e.g. in
> tcp_fragment() and tso_fragment()), it does not carry
> the txstamp_ack bit to the newly created skb if it is needed.
> The end result is a timestamping event (SCM_TSTAMP_ACK) will
When a tcp skb is sliced into two smaller skbs (e.g. in
tcp_fragment() and tso_fragment()), it does not carry
the txstamp_ack bit to the newly created skb if it is needed.
The end result is a timestamping event (SCM_TSTAMP_ACK) will
be missing from the sk->sk_error_queue.
This patch carries this
