From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:41:21 +0200
> Move DSACK code outside the SACK fast-path checking code. If the DSACK
> determined that the information was too old we stayed with a partial cache
> copied. Most likely this matters very little since the next packet wil
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:13:44 +0200
> + for (i = 0; i < num_sacks; i++) {
> + __be32 start_seq = sp[i].start_seq;
> + __be32 end_seq = sp[i].end_seq;
This is not sufficient, you have to also fix up the type
of the recv_sack_cache
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:06:07 +1100
> Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Since the SACK receive cache doesn't need the data to be in host
> >> > order we also remove the ntohl in the checking loop.
> >> ...
> >> > - for (i = 0; i< num_sack
Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Since the SACK receive cache doesn't need the data to be in host
>> > order we also remove the ntohl in the checking loop.
>> ...
>> > - for (i = 0; i< num_sacks; i++) {
>> > - __u32 start_seq = ntohl(sp[i].start_seq);
>> > - __
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070128 06:06]:
> From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:49:49 +0200
>
> > Since the SACK receive cache doesn't need the data to be in host
> > order we also remove the ntohl in the checking loop.
> ...
> > - for (i = 0; i< num_sacks
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:49:49 +0200
> Since the SACK receive cache doesn't need the data to be in host
> order we also remove the ntohl in the checking loop.
...
> - for (i = 0; i< num_sacks; i++) {
> - __u32 start_seq = ntohl(sp[i].start_se
Move DSACK code outside the SACK fast-path checking code. If the DSACK
determined that the information was too old we stayed with a partial cache
copied. Most likely this matters very little since the next packet will not be
DSACK and we will find it in the cache. but it's still not good form and t
