From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: parameswaran.r7@gmail.com
Cc: jchapman@katalix.com, kleptog@svana.org, nprachan@brocade.com,
rshearma@brocade.com, stephen@networkplumber.org,
sdietric@brocade.com, ciwillia@brocade.com, lboccass@brocade.com,
dfawcus@brocade.com, bhong@brocade.com, jblunck@brocade.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] New kernel function to get IP overhead on a socket.
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:19:19 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170403.191919.732158650374501762.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1704031906060.6985@vera100.eng.brocade.com>
From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Please see inline:
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, David Miller wrote:
>
>> From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>> > Can I take this to mean that we do need to factor in IP options in
>> > the L2TP device MTU setup (i.e approach in the posted patch is okay)?
>> >
>> > If yes, please let me know if I can keep the socket IP option overhead
>> > calculations in a generic function, or it would be better to move it back into
>> > L2TP code?
>>
>> If the user creates and maintains this UDP socket, then yes we have to
>> account for potential IP options.
>>
>
> Can I take this to mean that the patch in its present form is
> acceptable (patch currently accounts for IP options on the socket)?
> Please let me know if any further change is needed (I'll clean up the
> krobot reported errors after this).
Yes, please respin the patch with the krobot errors fixed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-04 2:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-22 22:59 [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] New kernel function to get IP overhead on a socket R. Parameswaran
2017-03-22 23:03 ` Tom Herbert
2017-03-23 22:05 ` David Miller
2017-03-24 1:51 ` R. Parameswaran
2017-03-24 13:13 ` James Chapman
2017-04-03 20:28 ` R. Parameswaran
2017-04-03 20:30 ` David Miller
2017-04-04 2:12 ` R. Parameswaran
2017-04-04 2:19 ` David Miller [this message]
2017-03-24 1:04 ` kbuild test robot
2017-03-23 1:21 R. Parameswaran
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170403.191919.732158650374501762.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=bhong@brocade.com \
--cc=ciwillia@brocade.com \
--cc=dfawcus@brocade.com \
--cc=jblunck@brocade.com \
--cc=jchapman@katalix.com \
--cc=kleptog@svana.org \
--cc=lboccass@brocade.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nprachan@brocade.com \
--cc=parameswaran.r7@gmail.com \
--cc=rshearma@brocade.com \
--cc=sdietric@brocade.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.