[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: parameswaran.r7@...il.com
Cc: jchapman@...alix.com, kleptog@...na.org, nprachan@...cade.com,
rshearma@...cade.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
sdietric@...cade.com, ciwillia@...cade.com, lboccass@...cade.com,
dfawcus@...cade.com, bhong@...cade.com, jblunck@...cade.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] New kernel function to get IP overhead
on a socket.
From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Please see inline:
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, David Miller wrote:
>
>> From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@...il.com>
>> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>> > Can I take this to mean that we do need to factor in IP options in
>> > the L2TP device MTU setup (i.e approach in the posted patch is okay)?
>> >
>> > If yes, please let me know if I can keep the socket IP option overhead
>> > calculations in a generic function, or it would be better to move it back into
>> > L2TP code?
>>
>> If the user creates and maintains this UDP socket, then yes we have to
>> account for potential IP options.
>>
>
> Can I take this to mean that the patch in its present form is
> acceptable (patch currently accounts for IP options on the socket)?
> Please let me know if any further change is needed (I'll clean up the
> krobot reported errors after this).
Yes, please respin the patch with the krobot errors fixed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists