From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/11] udp gso
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:45:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <20180419.134512.2236555560549522651.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20180417200059.30154-1-willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
        <20180418.135010.273233202471255234.davem@davemloft.net>
        <CAF=yD-JOp37i83ROiizCUOJS3mz+TUgn91b9pWSGJ0sh-O9gbg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, willemb@google.com
To: willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:32958 "EHLO
        shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753328AbeDSRpO (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:45:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAF=yD-JOp37i83ROiizCUOJS3mz+TUgn91b9pWSGJ0sh-O9gbg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:12:40 -0400

> Actually, yes, I should be able to relax that constraint with
> segmentation.
> 
> It is there in case a corked packet may grow to the point of
> having to be fragmented. But segmentation already ensures
> that its datagrams always fit in MTU.
> 
> Should be simple refinement to
> 
>             !(flags & MSG_MORE) &&
> 
> in __ip_append_data.

Right, if segmentation never sends greater than mtu then we can
relax the restriction in this way.

Great idea.