Messages in this thread |  | | From | kuznet@ms2 ... | | Subject | Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]] | | Date | Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:37:10 +0300 (MSK) |
| |
Hello!
> Doing PUSH from setsockopt(TCP_CORK) looked obviously wrong because it isn't > setting any socket state,
? 8)
> and also because the SIOCPUSH has nothing specific > with TCP_CORK, as said it can be useful also to flush the last fragment of data > pending in the send queue without having to wait all the unacknowledged data to > be acknowledged from the receiver when TCP_NODELAY isn't set.
Andrea, TCP_CORK and TCP_NODELAY is _one_ option, which was split to two mostly due to historical reasons. Its real name is TCP_CONTROL_NAGLING or something sort of this, only readable. 8)
> Changing the semantics of setsockopt(TCP_CORK, 2) would also break backwards > compatibility with all 2.[24].x kernels out there.
2nd ? 8)
Alexey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |