On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:58:39 +0300 (EEST)
"Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:07:00 +0300 (EEST)
> > "Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:07:00 +0300 (EEST)
> "Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >
> > > Since we don't invoke congestion control modules until after the SYN
> > > handshake this is not a
On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:07:00 +0300 (EEST)
"Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:27:03 +0300 (EEST)
> > "Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 27 May 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > >
> > > [PA
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:27:03 +0300 (EEST)
> "Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 May 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> >
> > [PATCH] [TCP]: Fix GSO ignorance of pkts_acked arg (cong.cntrl modules)
>
> Yes, thanks for fixing this.
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:27:03 +0300 (EEST)
"Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 May 2007, Baruch Even wrote:
> >
> > > * Ilpo J?rvinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070527 14:16]:
> > > >
> > > > Thus, my original question basically culmi
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Baruch Even wrote:
>
> > * Ilpo J?rvinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070527 14:16]:
> > >
> > > Thus, my original question basically culminates in this: should cc
> > > modules be passed number of packets acked or number of skbs acked?
>
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Baruch Even wrote:
> * Ilpo J?rvinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070527 14:16]:
> >
> > Thus, my original question basically culminates in this: should cc
> > modules be passed number of packets acked or number of skbs acked?
> > ...The latter makes no sense to me unless the value i
* Ilpo J?rvinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070527 14:16]:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, David Miller wrote:
>
> > From: "Ilpo_J?rvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 10:58:27 +0300 (EEST)
> >
> > > While you're in the right context (reviewing patch 8), you could also
> > > look if tcp_clean_r
On Sun, 27 May 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 10:58:27 +0300 (EEST)
>
> > While you're in the right context (reviewing patch 8), you could also
> > look if tcp_clean_rtx_queue does a right thing when passing a strange
> > pkts_acked
From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 10:58:27 +0300 (EEST)
> On Sat, 26 May 2007, David Miller wrote:
>
> > From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 11:35:53 +0300
> >
> > > Dave, you could consider applying other than the last one if they
On Sat, 26 May 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 11:35:53 +0300
>
> > Dave, you could consider applying other than the last one if they
> > seem ok to you too (you'll need to rebase your tcp-2.6 in that case
> > first to apply cleanly t
From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 11:35:53 +0300
> Dave, you could consider applying other than the last one if they
> seem ok to you too (you'll need to rebase your tcp-2.6 in that case
> first to apply cleanly those that touch tcp_sync_left_out :-)).
Absolutely, I
Hi,
Here are some changes to TCP I've been baking. Before doing this
patchset, I rebased tcp-2.6 branch to the current net-2.6 (goes
almost cleanly) because there are some depencies to the TCP work in
there.
I booted these today and no very obvious problems showed up (OOPSes,
BUG()s, reported sco
13 matches
Mail list logo
