On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 03:46:22PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:41:25 -0300 > > > There is no point in delaying the packet if we can't fit a single byte > > of data on it anymore. So lets just reduce the threshold by the amount > > that a data chunk with 4 bytes (rounding) would use. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > net/sctp/output.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/sctp/output.c b/net/sctp/output.c > > index 97745351d58c2fb32b9f9b57d61831d7724d83b2..c518569123ce42a8f21f80754756306c39875013 100644 > > --- a/net/sctp/output.c > > +++ b/net/sctp/output.c > > @@ -705,7 +705,8 @@ static sctp_xmit_t sctp_packet_can_append_data(struct sctp_packet *packet, > > /* Check whether this chunk and all the rest of pending data will fit > > * or delay in hopes of bundling a full sized packet. > > */ > > - if (chunk->skb->len + q->out_qlen >= transport->pathmtu - packet->overhead) > > + if (chunk->skb->len + q->out_qlen > > > + maxsize - packet->overhead - sizeof(sctp_data_chunk_t) - 4) > > There is no maxsize in this function. > > You must generate and test your patches against my networking tree. > > Neil, how were you able to see where 'maxsize' is and how it's even > calculated before determining that this change is correct? > > Please don't ACK patches you really didn't verify in any way at all, > thanks. It's better to have no reviews than bad reviews, because ACKs > are supposed to give me a reason to be more confident in the change. > > Marcelo, I'm ignoring the rest of your SCTP changes, you have to get > your act together. Argh, indeed. Bad decision here to split up the patchset. Sorry for that. Marcelo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
