> >> 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.

then, in that case, we can just goto dropafterack without calling
cwnd_inflate, i think.

> >> 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  
> together.

well, i meant to combine them, yes.
but it wasn't my main concern, so i don't insist on that.

YAMAMOTO Takashi