From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:02:47 +0300 (EEST)
> SACKED_ACKED and LOST are mutually exclusive, thus this > condition is bug with SACK (IMHO). NewReno, however, could get > enough duplicate ACKs which increment sacked_out, so it makes > sense to do this kind of limitting for non-SACK TCP but not for > SACK-enabled one. Perhaps the author had that in mind but did > the logic accidently wrong way around? > > Eventually these bugs trigger traps in the tcp_clean_rtx_queue > but it's much more informative to do this here (excludes some > other possible bugs). > > Maybe this BUG_TRAP is too expensive to be included everywhere > in the TCP code. Should there be some #if to surround it? > > Compile tested. Sadly enough I don't have time for couple of > weeks to test this as it would require some setuping, and besides, > my test machines are occupied currently to other work, but this > might also be net-2.6 (or even stable) material if it really > works (feel free to cut this paragraph or part of it if you > decide to include this :-)). > > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I've applied this, thanks for your patience. I will see if it makes my workstation explode :-) - 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
