[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver.

To: Paul Jakma <paul@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver.
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 06 Jan 2005 08:55:58 -0500
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Spatzier <thomas.spatzier@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501051408330.27046@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <OFB7F7E23F.EFB88418-ONC1256F7E.0031769E-C1256F7E.003270AD@xxxxxxxxxx> <1104764710.1048.580.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41DB26A6.2070008@xxxxxxxxx> <1104895169.1117.63.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501050627050.27046@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1104931011.1118.134.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501051408330.27046@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 09:29, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, jamal wrote:

> Sorry, wires crossed re "new behaviour". The "new new" behaviour in 
> the patch as you describe would be perfect.
> PS: Another issue, could we have kernel space IP fragmentation for 
> IP_HDRINCL sockets please? We currently have to implement 
> fragmentation ourselves, which seems silly given that kernel already 
> has this functionality.

I will let some other fireman grab this bait ;-> 
If not i will revisit it after a unknown/random timeout.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>