From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ipv4: Kill ip_rt_frag_needed(). Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20120613.235425.582674313518085400.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20120613.224203.297717896085583687.davem@davemloft.net> <20120613.225941.2175393318277942399.davem@davemloft.net> <20120614063632.GS27795@secunet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: steffen.klassert@secunet.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:37856 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750766Ab2FNGy2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:54:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120614063632.GS27795@secunet.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Steffen Klassert Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:36:32 +0200 > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:59:41PM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> >> Actually, thinking some more, we could extend my inet->pmtudisc patch >> to achieve a similar effect. >> >> Essentially we'd have a socket local PMTU value for datagram sockets. >> >> Would you be OK with that approach? > > This would require to maintain socket local pmtu expire times too. > Also, which of these pmtu values do we report if a user asks for > that? And how should we flush all these pmtu values? > > It could have some side effects. But if we get it to work, > it would be an improvement. I'm fine with everything > that works in the end :-) Your right, maybe the route updating approach is therefore better. I'll play around with my original patch. Thanks.