On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
>
> > I'm just checking through the existing CA modules. I don't see the rtt
> > used for RTO anywhere. This is what I gather they're each using rtt for.
>
> I meant more timeout like fashion (e.g., to "tim
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
>
> > When Gavin respins the patch I'll look at in the context of submitting
> > it as a bug fix. So Gavin please generate the patch against Linus's
> > vanilla GIT tree or net-2.6, your choise.
>
> The exist
From: Gavin McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:31:06 +
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
>
> > When Gavin respins the patch I'll look at in the context of submitting
> > it as a bug fix. So Gavin please generate the patch against Linus's
> > vanilla GIT tree or
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
> When Gavin respins the patch I'll look at in the context of submitting
> it as a bug fix. So Gavin please generate the patch against Linus's
> vanilla GIT tree or net-2.6, your choise.
The existing patch was against Linus' linux-2.6.git from a few days
From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:30:03 +0200 (EET)
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
>
> > Will do. I gather I should use the latest net- tree in future when
> > submitting patches.
>
> Doh, I owe you apology as I was probably too hasty to point y
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
> > Isn't it also much better this way in a case where ACK losses happened,
> > taking the longest RTT in that case is clearly questionable as it
> > may over-estimate considerably.
>
> Quite so.
>
> > Howe
Hi,
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> Isn't it also much better this way in a case where ACK losses happened,
> taking the longest RTT in that case is clearly questionable as it
> may over-estimate considerably.
Quite so.
> However, another thing to consider is the possibility of this
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
> The last attempt didn't take account of the situation where a timestamp
> wasn't available and tcp_clean_rtx_queue() has to feed both the RTO and the
> congestion avoidance. This updated patch stores both RTTs, making the
> delayed one available for t
Hi,
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
> The last attempt didn't take account of the situation where a timestamp
> wasn't available and tcp_clean_rtx_queue() has to feed both the RTO and the
> congestion avoidance. This updated patch stores both RTTs, making the
> delayed one available
The last attempt didn't take account of the situation where a timestamp
wasn't available and tcp_clean_rtx_queue() has to feed both the RTO and the
congestion avoidance. This updated patch stores both RTTs, making the
delayed one available for the RTO and the other (ca_seq_rtt) available for
cong
10 matches
Mail list logo
