On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:53 PM Neal Cardwell <ncardw...@google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:29 PM Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> wrote: > > > What if the comment is shortened up to fit in 80 columns and the units > > > (bytes) are added, something like: > > > > > > __u32 tcpi_snd_wnd; /* peer's advertised recv window > > > (bytes) */ > > just a thought: will tcpi_peer_rcv_wnd be more self-explanatory? > > Good suggestion. I'm on the fence about that one. By itself, I agree > tcpi_peer_rcv_wnd sounds much more clear. But tcpi_snd_wnd has the > virtue of matching both the kernel code (tp->snd_wnd) and RFC 793 > (SND.WND). So they both have pros and cons. Maybe someone else feels > more strongly one way or the other. no strong preference -- snd_wnd is just fine too with proper comment (for consistency).
also it might be good to comment whether it is scaled or not. it may not be obvious if the actual value and scale are small. > > neal
