Subject: Re: Refactoring Congestion Control (take 2)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
From: Rui Paulo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/09/2006 15:23:38
On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:34 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> Sorry but I guess I managed to misread the functions in question.
>> So, resuming the discussion:
>> 1) Wouldn't we be breaking the standard, and maybe, adding more
>> processing in the case of SEQ_GT th->th_ack, tp->snd_max ?
> SEQ_GT(th->th_ack, tp->snd_max) mean broken peer or such, doesn't it?
> is it stated in a standard? i couldn't find it.
Yes, I think so. I couldn't find it either.
>> 2) I think it's safer to stop/restart the retransmit timers before
>> moving on to the adjusting the congestion window.
> i don't think it makes differences as we are at splsoftnet,
> which blocks timers.
>> 3) This is probably a matter of taste, but I prefer it this way.
>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it doesn't involve any performance
>> drawback this way.
>> What do you think?
> i don't have a strong preference, so if you prefer it for some reason,
> i have no trouble with it.
> after all, my main concern was about names of callbacks, rather than
> number of callbacks. :)
Oh, sorry about it then, I thought you meant to combine the two
> i'd suggest:
> "cwnd_inflation" -> "fast_retransmit_newack"
> "new_data_acked" -> "newack"
Will do that.