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