On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 09:43 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >> Read the history. I still say it is best if we don't accept a partial >> solution. If we are going to introduce the sysctl as a core item it >> should function as a core item and not as something that belongs to >> TCP only. > > > But this patch is the base, adding both the core sysctl and its first > usage. > > Do we really need to split it in 2 patches ? Really ? > > The goal is to use it in all skb providers were it might be a > performance gain, once they are identified.
That is what I thought. So why are we trying to sell this as a core change then. All I am asking for is the sysctl to be moved and renamed since based on all of your descriptions this clearly only impacts TCP. > Your points were already raised and will be addressed, by either me or > you. And maybe others. Please don't sign me up for work I didn't volunteer for. I already have enough broken code to try and fix. I'm pretty sure I need to go in and fix the gso_max_size code for starters. 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. - Alex
