From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262768AbUHBTyT (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Aug 2004 15:54:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262837AbUHBTyT (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Aug 2004 15:54:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:29359 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262768AbUHBTyS (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Aug 2004 15:54:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:53:31 +0200 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Robert White Cc: "'David S. Miller'" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: tcp_push_pending_frames() without TCP_CORK or TCP_NODELAY Message-ID: <20040802195330.GA23939@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <20040801195411.0577b7f2.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zhXaljGHf11kAtnf" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:44:41PM -0700, Robert White wrote: > Is there an argument _against_ providing an explicit flush? well MSG_MORE is equivalent, it's an explicit non-flush... --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBDpu5xULwo51rQBIRAhs7AJ40XXvP37DvLaTO9ebEz7JXGM3GewCgoDqo 0nF2mcUNm+rWU3OXyGM1NS0= =l3ez -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf--