Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cheetah.davemloft.net (dsl027-180-174.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [216.27.180.174])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j3LNW9dD021422
	for <netdev@oss.sgi.com>; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:32:09 -0700
Received: from localhost
	([127.0.0.1] helo=cheetah.davemloft.net ident=davem)
	by cheetah.davemloft.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 1DOl2f-0003M3-00; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:25:05 -0700
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:25:05 -0700
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: is UDP_CORK "real"
Message-Id: <20050421162505.3db8ed7c.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <426833F0.9010803@hp.com>
References: <426833F0.9010803@hp.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; sparc-unknown-linux-gnu)
X-Face: "_;p5u5aPsO,_Vsx"^v-pEq09'CU4&Dc1$fQExov$62l60cgCc%FnIwD=.UF^a>?5'9Kn[;433QFVV9M..2eN.@4ZWPGbdi<=?[:T>y?SD(R*-3It"Vj:)"dP
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.83/848/Thu Apr 21 12:37:33 2005 on oss.sgi.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-archive-position: 218
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
X-original-sender: davem@davemloft.net
Precedence: bulk
X-list: netdev
Content-Length: 289
Lines: 10

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:14:56 -0700
Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> 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?