On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:24 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >> If this is only meant to be a performance modification and is only >> really targeted at TCP TSO/GRO then all I ask is that we use a name >> like tcp_max_gso_frags and relocate the sysctl to the TCP section. >> Otherwise if we are actually going to try to scope this out on a wider >> level and limit all frags which is what the name implies then the >> patch set needs to make a better attempt at covering all cases where >> it may apply. > > > This is the goal. > > Other skb providers (like tun and af_packet) will also use this optional > limit. > > I fail to see why Hans should send a complete patch series.
You realize that conflicts with what anybody else would be told. What was provided in this patch is a half solution, and it may cause bigger messes since it is unclear exactly how this sysctl is meant to be used. > We will send followup patches, as we always did. > > I will send the GRO change for example. > > So please keep a sysctl name _without_ TCP in it, it really has nothing > to do with TCP. In the end I am not the one you have to convince. I have simply stated my opinion, and I guess we will have to agree to disagree. It is entirely up to Dave if he wants to apply it or not. I have slides I need to work on for next week.. :-) - Alex
