netdev
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: is UDP_CORK "real"

from [David S. Miller] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: is UDP_CORK "real"
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:25:05 -0700
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <426833F0.9010803@xxxxxx>
References: <426833F0.9010803@xxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx 
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:14:56 -0700
Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Is UDP_CORK going to be an ongoing feature?

Yes, it's there and it's real.

If netperf is passing a TCP socket option number in for
a setsockopt() on a UDP socket, how in the world is that
the kernel's problem?
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: [NET] Add missing newline for skb_*_panic, Patrick McHardy
Next by Date:  Re: [PATCH] netem: account for packets in delayed queue in qlen, Patrick McHardy
Previous by Thread:  is UDP_CORK "real", Rick Jones
Next by Thread:  Re: is UDP_CORK "real", Rick Jones
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]