From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP_FAILFAST: a new socket option to timeout/abort a connection quicker Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:28:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20100824162844.GA7889@nuttenaction> References: <1282630819-23104-1-git-send-email-hkchu@google.com> <1282632262.2378.1681.camel@edumazet-laptop> <4C737D15.5060400@nets.rwth-aachen.de> <423116d1d215b0fb3d1c966fb8167508@localhost> <4C73DE32.1030802@nets.rwth-aachen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Dumazet , "H.K. Jerry Chu" , ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Hannemann Return-path: Received: from alternativer.internetendpunkt.de ([88.198.24.89]:53811 "EHLO geheimer.internetendpunkt.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755447Ab0HXQ24 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:28:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C73DE32.1030802@nets.rwth-aachen.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Arnd Hannemann | 2010-08-24 16:58:58 [+0200]: >Nice, so did you come up with a name for the socket option yet? +#define TCP_UTO 18 /* User Timeout Option */ The patch is an early state and details as well as testing is a little bit costly. >Hmm, is there really a difference? If an application specifies >a wanted timeout e.g. with USER_TIMEOUT, CHANGEABLE will >become false and the value would be announced via ADV_UTO. >The connection could be aborted locally after that time passed, >regardless of what the remote site thinks the timeout should be. > >As I understand it U_LIMIT and L_LIMIT would only be there >for safety to disallow nonsensical values of USER_TIMEOUT. > >Did I miss something? Maybe not, aot sure. I must take a look at the patch from Jerry. I had no time until now. Hagen