netdev - Re: [PATCH net] tcp_bbr: better deal with suboptimal GSO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1519228509.2988.17.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:55:09 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tcp_bbr: better deal with suboptimal GSO

On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 07:09 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Very minor nit, why don't:
> > 
> >         return max_t(u32, bytes / mss_now, min_tso_segs);
> > 
> > and drop the 'segs' local variable?
> 
> Simply to ease backports.
> 
> We had some constant changes in this function in the past.

Ok, thank you for the explanation. No objections on my side.

Cheers,

Paolo