From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 20 13:23:11 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D13616A401; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:23:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com (out5.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AAD13C45E; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:23:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from out1.internal (unknown [10.202.2.149]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE18A209408; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:23:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by out1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:23:07 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: Mn7Ixsr2TrZ100PZQsdm6xCeQQwT05SLj/4peLJGkJoS 1174396989 Received: from [192.168.123.18] (82-35-112-254.cable.ubr07.dals.blueyonder.co.uk [82.35.112.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F2C26D44; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <45FFE03B.5030103@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:23:07 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070125) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gleb Smirnoff References: <200703201315.l2KDFKd0065099@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070320132025.GP2713@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20070320132025.GP2713@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet raw_ip.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:23:11 -0000 Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > We've got interfaces with even larger MTU. Why shouldn't we permit sending > larger datagrams? > It seems reasonable to be consistent in the amount of send space we reserve for both SOCK_RAW and SOCK_DGRAM in netinet. I agree however that this is really the application's problem -- it should probe for interface MTU and set SO_SENDBUF accordingly, and this is what I originally told the submitter. regards, BMS