From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 14 16:22:45 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93DAE1065679 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:22:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oppermann@networx.ch) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F348FC18 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:22:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 62857 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2010 16:17:42 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 14 Sep 2010 16:17:42 -0000 Message-ID: <4C8FA155.8050602@networx.ch> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:22:45 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fabien Thomas References: <4C8E0C1E.2020707@networx.ch> <4C8F978F.1030707@networx.ch> <89E74A8F-4FF9-482B-83D0-3D076F0E41E4@netasq.com> In-Reply-To: <89E74A8F-4FF9-482B-83D0-3D076F0E41E4@netasq.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:45:47 +0000 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TCP loopback socket fusing X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:22:45 -0000 On 14.09.2010 18:08, Fabien Thomas wrote: > > On 14 sept. 2010, at 17:41, Andre Oppermann wrote: > >> On 14.09.2010 11:18, Fabien Thomas wrote: >>> Great, >>> >>> This will maybe kill the long time debate about "my loopback is slow vs linux" >>> To have the best of both world what about a socket option to enable/disable fusing: >>> can be useful when you need to see some connection "packetized". >> >> A sysctl to that effect is already in the patch. > yes, i'm just wondering on a per connection setting. I've devised a way to prevent socket fusing when bpf is enabled on the interface the loopback came from. So I'm leaning against adding another obscure and non-portable socket option. -- Andre