jtl added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
sys/netinet/tcp_output.c:1551 In my opinion, this does //not// need to be a
panic. A KASSERT() should be sufficient.
Also, this is not the re-usable macro which Lawrence suggested.
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D5872
EMAIL PREFER
jtl added a comment.
FWIW, I agree with deleting the ENOBUFs special-case. If we haven't already
set the right timers by here, we have another bug which needs to be fixed.
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D5872
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/email
jtl added a comment.
In https://reviews.freebsd.org/D5872#127343, @mike-karels.net wrote:
> If we get an ENOBUFS when sending data, we will already be running the
retransmit timer.
Good point, but see below.
> If we drop an ACK on ENOBUFS, either we will receive more data and
jtl added a comment.
I think something like this code will get you closer to what you want:
Index: sys/netinet/tcp_output.c
===
--- sys/netinet/tcp_output.c(revision 298090)
+++ sys/netinet/tcp_output.c
jtl added a comment.
In https://reviews.freebsd.org/D5872#127063, @jtl wrote:
> Doesn't tp->t_rxtshift get updated on a successful send? If not, I think
that is what we should be fixing.
Of course, tp->t_rxtshift doesn't get updated on a successful send. That's
not the way this w
jtl requested changes to this revision.
jtl added a reviewer: jtl.
jtl added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Doesn't tp->t_rxtshift get updated on a successful send? If not, I think that
is what we should be fixing.
Personally, I think a connection should drop if
