On 22/01/14 07:04, Russell Senior wrote:
"Russell" == Russell Senior russell@personaltelco.net writes:
"Antonio" == Antonio Quartulli antonio@meshcoding.com writes:
Antonio> The current MTU computation always returns a value smaller Antonio> than 1500bytes even if the real interfaces have an MTU large Antonio> enough to compensate the batman-adv overhead.
Antonio> Fix the computation by properly returning the highest Antonio> admitted value.
Antonio> Signed-off-by: Antonio Quartulli antonio@meshcoding.com ---
Russell> This seems to fix the bat0-MTU-unnecessarily-small problem I Russell> observed last night and reported on the IRC channel. I Russell> haven't actually passed any traffic over it yet, but the Russell> interface is up with the expected MTU value with the patch.
Antonio> This patch is missing a Reported-by clause because I did not Antonio> have "russell"'s email address at hand.
Russell> Reported-by: Russell Senior russell@personaltelco.net
Followup, as requested, I tried setting a smaller MTU (1400) on the adhoc0 interface. When fragmentation was enabled, this resulted in no change to MTU (still 1500) for bat0. When I disabled fragmentation, the bat0 MTU dropped, as expected, to 1368. Interestingly, the MTU on the bridge that bat0 was a member of remained 1500 despite the lower bat0 MTU. Should that be?
I don't really know how the bridge code behaves. As far as I remember it should adapt to the smallest MTU.
But thanks for testing! This shows that the patch is working fine ;)