On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:20 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Stephen Rothwell
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:58:53 +1000
>
>> net/built-in.o: In function `tcp_fastopen_ctx_free':
>> tcp_fastopen.c:(.text+0x5cc5c): undefined reference to `crypto_destroy_tfm'
>> net/built-in.o: In function `tcp_fastope
e
> don't want to re-initialize the device when one or more queues has been
> already
> attached. Add a comment and correct the return value to zero.
>
> Reported-by: Jerry Chu
> Cc: Jerry Chu
> Cc: Wei Yongjun
> Cc: Eric Dumazet
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang
>
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 13:40 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> Since we've reduce the size of tun_struct and use flex array to allocate
>> netdev
>> queues, it's safe for us to increase the limit of queues in tuntap.
>
> Its already safe to increas
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Alexander Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 01:42:31PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> Alex, this patch doesn't apply, it was completely corrupted by your email
>> client.
>>
>> Make a fresh submission, with this fixed. But before you do, email the
>> patch
Eric,
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 21:34 -0700, H.K. Jerry Chu wrote:
>
>> IMHO 31secs seem a little short. Why not change it to 6 as well because 63
>> secs still beats 93secs with 3sec initRTO and 5 retries.
>>
>>
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 10:25 -0700, H.K. Jerry Chu wrote:
>
>> But it probably matter slightly more for TCP Fast Open (the server
>> side patch has
>> been completed and will be posted soon, after I finish breaki
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:45 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:12:30 -0700
>
>> On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 10:25 -0700, H.K. Jerry Chu wrote:
>>
>>> But it probably matter slightly more for TCP Fast Open (the server
>>> sid
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Alex Bergmann wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I'm not 100% sure, but it looks like I found an RFC mismatch with the
> current default values of the TCP implementation.
>
> Alex
>
> From 8b854a525eb45f64ad29dfab16f9d9f681e84495 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alexander Berg
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 12:00 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 11:29 +0200, Alex Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> > Actual 6 SYN frames are sent. The initial one and 5 retries.
>> >
>>
>> first one had a t0 + 0 delay. How can it count ??
9 matches
Mail list logo
