From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] allow passthrough of rmpp packets to user mad clients Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:41:34 -0600 Message-ID: <20100618154134.GA12884@obsidianresearch.com> References: <4C2744E8AD2982428C5BFE523DF8CDCB49A488DAD8@MNEXMB1.qlogic.org> <4C2744E8AD2982428C5BFE523DF8CDCB49D09E7C2F@MNEXMB1.qlogic.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C2744E8AD2982428C5BFE523DF8CDCB49D09E7C2F-amwN6d8PyQWXx9kJd3VG2h2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mike Heinz Cc: Roland Dreier , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Hal Rosenstock , "Hefty, Sean" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:42:38AM -0500, Mike Heinz wrote: > First addressing Roland's comment, there are in fact TCP socket > options which control how much buffering is done in the kernel and > hence control message size and segmentation points for TCP. Those > options allow the careful balance of window size, kernel memory > space and TCP performance to be tuned, the defaults for these > options tend to be relatively small. This is possible for TCP since > the protocol is defined at the application level as a byte stream > protocol, hence it is up to the TCP stack to decide the proper > segmentation points and windowing. Applications must be written to > assume a recv() could return only part of a corresponding send() and > could be at any arbitrary byte boundary. Umh, dumb question.. Why not just add byte-stream like APIs to the kernel interface for RMPP? Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html