From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Niklas_Hamb=c3=bcchen?= Subject: Re: net.ipv4.tcp_rmem does override net.core.rmem_max? Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:20:17 +0100 Message-ID: <56C36861.7030904@nh2.me> References: <56C35692.7010807@nh2.me> <56C356E5.8010004@nh2.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56C356E5.8010004-7wQd5C9ZzNw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Cc: linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Or, there is the following interpretation: "This value does not override the global net.core.rmem_max." might mean "This value does not override the global net.core.rmem_max to the extent that it does not define the upper users can set with SO_RCVBUF. It does, however, override net.core.rmem_max if SO_RCVBUF is not used." This would be consistent with my findings. I'm not 100% confident about whether this is what the code does though, see my comment http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31546835/tcp-receiving-window-size-h= igher-than-net-core-rmem-max/35438236#comment58576526_35438236 for details on that. On 16/02/16 18:05, Niklas Hamb=C3=BCchen wrote: > An answer to the question I just posted, >=20 > http://stackoverflow.com/a/35438236/263061 >=20 > suggests that neither is the case, but in fact the kernel takes the > maximum of the two values. >=20 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html