> On Oct 8, 2006, at 2:49 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> 
> >>> "cwnd_inflation" sounds weird to me, given that what it does is
> >>> ack handling for fast recovery.  otoh, "new_data_acked" inflates  
> >>> cwnd.
> >>> isn't it better to unify these two callbacks?
> >>
> >> Well, "inflation" is probably not the best word, but I don't see why
> >> we want to unify them. What do you have in mind?
> >
> > because both of them are called sequentially in most cases
> > (unless rcvacktoomuch, for which we can't do much anyway),
> > it isn't clear for me what's the benefit to have two callbacks
> > rather than one.
> 
> Right now, I don't see a way to have just one callback because of SACK.
> We would have to call tcp_sack_newack() in every other  
> tcp_xxxx_cwnd_inflation().

if you have sack, whatever xxxx is, tcp_xxxx_cwnd_inflation isn't
needed to be called?
(i'm not sure about the semantics of cwnd_inflation.)

> The point here is to introduce HSTCP and Westwood+ after these changes.

these callbacks should be separated for them, you mean?

YAMAMOTO Takashi