From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerrit Renker Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:07:16 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] [DCCP]: Introduce two new socket options Message-Id: <200611161407.16950@strip-the-willow> List-Id: References: <200609221430.14555.ian.mcdonald@jandi.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <200609221430.14555.ian.mcdonald@jandi.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dccp@vger.kernel.org Quoting Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo: | On 9/22/06, Gerrit Renker wrote: | > Quoting Eddie Kohler: | > | > Why burden the application programmer to handcode an estimation of the average each | > | > time? I can not see a justification for this, certainly not for CCIDs which | > | > are intended to be used with (on average) fixed packet sizes. | > | > | > | > I think that a priority is to keep the user programming interface as simple as | > | > possible -- like UDP's interface, as stated in RFC 4340. | > | | > | But if DCCP_SOCKOPT_TX_PACKET_SIZE defaults to the MSS, which the drafts | > | explicitly allow, then there's no burden on the application programmer. | > This is a good input and should be related to patch 6/7 in which the default setting is | > the standard size packet of 256 bytes; so maybe we should use MSS (or an estimate of it) there. | | Hi Folks, could Ian or Gerrit respin these patches to reflect what was | discussed here? Perhaps we can get this merged in 2.6.20 if we get | this done and tested before the merge window closes. I am working on this, hope to have patch ready by end of next week. Gerrit