[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALx6S347aZyd1NhDEXsONG_txNC2PSXD-piv4e8kcs_DBFHOeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:41:46 -0700
From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/4] ipv4: no CHECKSUM_PARTIAL on MSG_MORE corked sockets
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
<hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 17:04, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
>> <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
>> > We cannot reliable calculate packet size on MSG_MORE corked sockets
>> > and thus cannot decide if they are going to be fragmented later on,
>> > so better not use CHECKSUM_PARTIAL in the first place.
>> >
>> MSG_MORE should be independent of checksum offload. If packet is
>> fragmented the fix in ip_output will ensure that skb_checksum_help is
>> properly called.
>
> The probability is that we are going to fragment if MSG_MORE is set,
> because exceeding link mtu is quite probable, see e.g. NFS use case. Why
> not simply use the csum functions during copy-in in that case? It makes
> much more sense to me.
>
For datagram sockets MSG_MORE means that more datagrams will be sent,
it's not used to incrementally add data to a datagram already queued
(SEQPACKET with EOR is for that).
> I don't see a reason to test for fragment length at all, then.
>
> Bye,
> Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists