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.

Good point.

>
>> 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.

>   i'd suggest:
> 	"cwnd_inflation" -> "fast_retransmit_newack"
> 	"new_data_acked" -> "newack"

Will do that.

Thanks,
--
Rui Paulo





--
Rui Paulo







--
Rui Paulo