From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sctp: add new getsockopt option SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_KERNEL Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:53:26 -0300 Message-ID: <20150720185326.GA2456@localhost.localdomain> References: <6091a8542d13f43fbe1abfa25062d28d15b15e66.1436891629.git.marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> <55A7B698.8080409@gmail.com> <20150716140314.GC1855@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Neil Horman , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org To: Vlad Yasevich Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57684 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754032AbbGTSxa (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:53:30 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150716140314.GC1855@localhost.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:03:14AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:50:16AM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote: ... > > I am not familiar enough with DLM and its history, but my question is this: > > If dlm always peels off a socket for a new associations, why is it using > > 1-to-many api in the first place? Doing a quick scan of DLM lowcoms code > > for sctp specific things, I see nothing that has specific dependencies > > on 1-to-many api. It might be simpler to switch to using 1-to-1 api, similar > > to dlm tcp and eliminate this dependency. > > > > Is that a naive point of view? > > Not at all, that's a very good question. I also don't know much of DLM > code itself, I'll check that. Sounds like DLM is using 1-to-many just in an attempt to use multi-homing, but we can do that with 1-to-1 too. I'll draft a patch and see how it goes, and perhaps with that we can avoid/postpone this question regarding indirect call to sctp_do_peeloff by kernel. Marcelo