From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gilad Ben-Yossef Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Per route TCP options Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:15:14 +0200 Message-ID: <4ADEC312.7090609@codefidence.com> References: <1256052161-14156-1-git-send-email-gilad@codefidence.com> <4ADDDAFB.5040600@gmail.com> <4ADDE132.3010408@codefidence.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Eric Dumazet , Netdev , ori@comsleep.com To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= Return-path: Received: from xenbox.codefidence.com ([92.48.73.16]:56789 "EHLO xenbox.codefidence.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752445AbZJUIPO (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:15:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Ilpo, Ilpo J=E4rvinen wrote: > >> Specifically, I couldn't understand why sysctl_tcp_ecn is documented= to be a >> boolean value, but is initialized to 2 and queried with if (sysctl_t= cp_ecn =3D=3D >> 1) so I decided to let it be until I figure it out... ;-) >> =20 > > Ah, I didn't notice that "- BOOLEAN" there so I modified only the=20 > description (some blindness to caps perhaps :-)), did you perhaps rea= d > it fully? > > =20 Yes, I did finally. What threw me off was that that=20 TCP_ECN_create_request() were the value if checked as a boolean was=20 inlined in the include file. I've missed that. Thanks for the tip. At any rate, it means that "noecn" is not a good route option feature,=20 since it is not boolean. I plan to handle those in the next patch set,=20 if the current one is accepted. Thanks, Gilad --=20 Gilad Ben-Yossef Chief Coffee Drinker & CTO Codefidence Ltd. Web: http://codefidence.com Cell: +972-52-8260388 Skype: gilad_codefidence Tel: +972-8-9316883 ext. 201 =46ax: +972-8-9316884 Email: gilad@codefidence.com Check out our Open Source technology and training blog - http://tuxolog= y.net "Sorry cannot parse this, its too long to be true :)" -- Eric Dumazet on netdev mailing list