From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757618Ab1EXVaK (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 17:30:10 -0400 Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:53695 "EHLO out3.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757224Ab1EXV3T (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 17:29:19 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: 2bToz+dRdP5IxP/CK3WyJZp+lG51zi9IprOcVifJAHaM 1306272558 Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:25:16 -0700 From: Greg KH To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9meth_M=E1rton?= Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Matt Mooney , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, LKML , usbip-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: USBIP protocol documentation? Message-ID: <20110524212516.GB24134@kroah.com> References: <4DDBF8BD.3000603@freemail.hu> <20110524183448.GA18511@kroah.com> <4DDC142E.6070003@freemail.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4DDC142E.6070003@freemail.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:25:18PM +0200, Németh Márton wrote: > The current protocol implementation is based on top of TCP. In the message > at http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122001883519653&w=2 the SCTP is mentioned. > Have anybody worked on finding out what benefits the SCTP could give to USBIP > and what would be the drawbacks? It might not work well on Windows, which the current code does today. I think that the TCP vs. SCTP is the least of the protocol issues at the moment, there are lots of other things to work on :) greg k-h