- 24 11月, 2009 1 次提交
-
-
由 Wei Yongjun 提交于
This patch implement the sender side for SACK-IMMEDIATELY extension. Section 4.1. Sender Side Considerations Whenever the sender of a DATA chunk can benefit from the corresponding SACK chunk being sent back without delay, the sender MAY set the I-bit in the DATA chunk header. Reasons for setting the I-bit include o The sender is in the SHUTDOWN-PENDING state. o The application requests to set the I-bit of the last DATA chunk of a user message when providing the user message to the SCTP implementation. Signed-off-by: NWei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
-
- 05 9月, 2009 4 次提交
-
-
由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于
SCTP will delay the last part of a large write due to NAGLE, if that part is smaller then MTU. Since we are doing large writes, we might as well send the last portion now instead of waiting untill the next large write happens. The small portion will be sent as is regardless, so it's better to not delay it. This is a result of much discussions with Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com> and Doug Graham <dgraham@nortel.com>. Many thanks go out to them. Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
-
由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于
Currenlty, sctp breaks up user messages into fragments and sends each fragment to the lower layer by itself. This means that for each fragment we go all the way down the stack and back up. This also discourages bundling of multiple fragments when they can fit into a sigle packet (ex: due to user setting a low fragmentation threashold). We introduce a new command SCTP_CMD_SND_MSG and hand the whole message down state machine. The state machine and the side-effect parser will cork the queue, add all chunks from the message to the queue, and then un-cork the queue thus causing the chunks to get transmitted. Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
-
由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于
If the association has a SACK timer pending and now DATA queued to be send, we'll try to bundle the SACK with the next application send. As such, try encourage bundling by accounting for SACK in the size of the first chunk fragment. Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
-
由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于
Since an application may specify the maximum SCTP fragment size that all data should be fragmented to, we need to fix how we do segmentation. Right now, if a user specifies a small fragment size, the segment size can go negative in the presence of AUTH or COOKIE_ECHO bundling. What we need to do is track the largest possbile DATA chunk that can fit into the mtu. Then if the fragment size specified is bigger then this maximum length, we'll shrink it down. Otherwise, we just use the smaller segment size without changing it further. Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
-
- 10 4月, 2008 1 次提交
-
-
由 Li Zefan 提交于
Should not count it if the allocation of this object failed. Signed-off-by: NLi Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
- 24 3月, 2008 1 次提交
-
-
由 Florian Westphal 提交于
sctp_datamsg_free and sctp_datamsg_track are just aliases for sctp_datamsg_put and sctp_chunk_hold, respectively. Saves 32 Bytes on x86. Signed-off-by: NFlorian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
- 06 3月, 2008 1 次提交
-
-
由 Harvey Harrison 提交于
__FUNCTION__ is gcc-specific, use __func__ Signed-off-by: NHarvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
- 05 2月, 2008 1 次提交
-
-
由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于
I was notified by Randy Stewart that lksctp claims to be "the reference implementation". First of all, "the refrence implementation" was the original implementation of SCTP in usersapce written ty Randy and a few others. Second, after looking at the definiton of 'reference implementation', we don't really meet the requirements. Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
-
- 11 10月, 2007 1 次提交
-
-
由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于
SCTP-AUTH, Section 6.2: Endpoints MUST send all requested chunks authenticated where this has been requested by the peer. The other chunks MAY be sent authenticated or not. If endpoint pair shared keys are used, one of them MUST be selected for authentication. To send chunks in an authenticated way, the sender MUST include these chunks after an AUTH chunk. This means that a sender MUST bundle chunks in order to authenticate them. If the endpoint has no endpoint pair shared key for the peer, it MUST use Shared Key Identifier 0 with an empty endpoint pair shared key. If there are multiple endpoint shared keys the sender selects one and uses the corresponding Shared Key Identifier Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com> Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
- 09 5月, 2007 1 次提交
-
-
由 Michael Opdenacker 提交于
Signed-off-by: NMichael Opdenacker <michael@free-electrons.com> Signed-off-by: NAdrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
-
- 09 10月, 2005 1 次提交
-
-
由 Al Viro 提交于
- added typedef unsigned int __nocast gfp_t; - replaced __nocast uses for gfp flags with gfp_t - it gives exactly the same warnings as far as sparse is concerned, doesn't change generated code (from gcc point of view we replaced unsigned int with typedef) and documents what's going on far better. Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
-
- 12 7月, 2005 1 次提交
-
-
由 Alexey Dobriyan 提交于
Signed-off-by: NAlexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
-
- 17 4月, 2005 1 次提交
-
-
由 Linus Torvalds 提交于
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history, even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about 3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good infrastructure for it. Let it rip!
-