On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 10:35 -0400, Neal Cardwell wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 22:58 -0400, Neal Cardwell wrote: > >> @@ -2418,13 +2418,9 @@ bool tcp_schedule_loss_probe(struct sock *sk) > >> timeout = max_t(u32, timeout, msecs_to_jiffies(10)); > >> > >> /* If RTO is shorter, just schedule TLP in its place. */ > > > > I have hard time to read this comment. > > > > We are here trying to arm a timer based on TLP. > > > > If RTO is shorter, we'll arm the timer based on RTO instead of TLP. > > > > Is "If RTO is shorter, just schedule TLP in its place." really correct ? > > > > I suggest we reword the comment or simply get rid of it now the code is > > more obvious. > > OK, how about: > > /* If the RTO formula yields an earlier time, then use that time. */ >
Sounds better :) > We can also add a reference to the RACK/TLP Internet Draft at the top > of tcp_schedule_loss_probe(). > > Whatever wording we decide on, I am happy to send a patch for net-next > once this fix is merged into net-next. Sure.
