On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote: > From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:49:21 +0300 (EEST) > > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > [...snip...] > > > > > > I've applied this, thanks for your patience. > > > > ...heh... I was getting a bit unsure whether you still had them... > > > > > I think I sent an updated version later (hopefully I reach you before > > > you push these out :-)), which made the BUG_ON unconditional (I used it > > > instead of BUG_TRAP as it seems to be generic machinery for handling > > > these). > > > > Here: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=117648826715609&w=2 > > Thanks, I'll swap in that version of the patch.
Hmm, just looked a bit more, is the left_out really that necessary as a separate variable? It's always possible to calculate it in the places where it is needed and users are quite few after all (basically the packets_in_flight callers)... ...it just would save some bytes in tcp_sock... ;-) -- i.
