On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:57:15PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> Thinking about this some more... why would I need to use
> anyting other than "SKB"? SKB is where the front part of
> the split data is placed, and skb->next contains the
> subsequent data.
>
> So just using "skb" should be fine.
You're right. Somehow I thought the in_sack calculations
were being done with the old skb parameters.
> A further simplification seems possible, in that all of the
> tp->*_out modifications can be keyed upon the "skb_ever_sent"
> arg to tcp_fragment().
Yes this is a good idea.
> + if (skb_ever_sent) {
We could check TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->end_seq versus tp->snd_nxt
instead of tracking it manually.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
