[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lwip-devel] Re: [task #7040] Work on tcp_enqueue
From: |
Jakob Stoklund Olesen |
Subject: |
[lwip-devel] Re: [task #7040] Work on tcp_enqueue |
Date: |
Sun, 01 Feb 2009 16:32:20 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
"address@hidden" <address@hidden> writes:
> Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote:
>> Sure, but UDP performance is rarely critical, and it seems wasteful to
>> extend struct pbuf just for that.
>
> I wouldn't think so. If you want high throughput and can cope with
> lost segments, UDP is the better alternative to TCP and would still
> require high throughput!
You are right, I didn't think of the multimedia protocols.
> However, the goal of that patch (and its
> discussion) was to NOT include another member in struct pbuf but to
> solve it in a different way (which is why it is still open and not
> finished).
Right. Do you think my proposals for TCP are a detour from a unified
solution? I think the requirements for TCP and UDP/UDPLite are different
enough that little can be shared.
I would probably make these functions:
inet_chksum_pseudo_header(): inet_chksum_pseudo without payload.
inet_chksum_memcpy(): Checksumming memcpy.
They would be useful for UDP as well.
For TCP, a checksum field in the pbuf is not really that useful. A
data_csum field in tcp_seg might be, but it is not strictly necessary.
- [lwip-devel] Re: [task #7040] Work on tcp_enqueue, Jakob Stoklund Olesen, 2009/02/01
- RE: [lwip-devel] Re: [task #7040] Work on tcp_enqueue, bill, 2009/02/02
- Re: [lwip-devel] Re: [task #7040] Work on tcp_enqueue, address@hidden, 2009/02/02
- RE: [lwip-devel] Re: [task #7040] Work on tcp_enqueue, bill, 2009/02/02
- Re: [lwip-devel] Re: [task #7040] Work on tcp_enqueue, address@hidden, 2009/02/02
- RE: [lwip-devel] Re: [task #7040] Work on tcp_enqueue, bill, 2009/02/02
- Re: [lwip-devel] Re: [task #7040] Work on tcp_enqueue, address@hidden, 2009/02/02
- RE: [lwip-devel] Re: [task #7040] Work on tcp_enqueue, bill, 2009/02/03
- Re: [lwip-devel] Re: [task #7040] Work on tcp_enqueue, Jonathan Larmour, 2009/02/04