Subject: Re: is UDP_CORK "real"

From: Rick Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:53:44 -0700

David S. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:14:56 -0700
> Rick Jones <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Is UDP_CORK going to be an ongoing feature?
> 
> 
> Yes, it's there and it's real.
> 
> If netperf is passing a TCP socket option number in for
> a setsockopt() on a UDP socket, how in the world is that
> the kernel's problem?

I didn't really mean to say that it was a kernel problem per se. I was trying to 
understand the space, make sure that it was deliberate that there were actual 
overlaps between the TCP_mumble and UDP_mumble options and such.  The release 
bits for netperf 2.4.0 will have checks to make sure it does not try to set 
"TCP_NODLEAY" on a UDP socket.  Call it a 13 year lingering misfeature in 
netperf if you like :)

rick jones