> > > > > Webrev http://npt.sfbay/net/infotech/export/stk-fix/webrev/ > > > > > > > > I'm confused why we don't check both the local and peer tcp_xmit_head > > > > fields in tcp_fuse(). It seems odd to have one check in tcp_fuse() > > > > and the other at the tcp_fuse() call site. > > > > > > > > One other nit: you have "re-enable" in one place and "reenable" in the > > > > other. (It was also probably a mistake to name the field tcp_refuse > > > > rather than tcp_re_fuse :-/) > > > > > > To get the peer, we have to do a tcp lookup. That is done in > > tcp_fuse(). > > > It is just an optimization to call tcp_fuse only after checking our own > > > tcp_xmit_head instead of calling tcp_fuse() all the time. > > > > Is it a worthwhile optimization? Seems like complexity for an edge case. > > > It really doesn't matter to me that much either way. So tell me, would > you prefer to have all the checks in tcp_fuse() and leave tcp_output() > unmodified as it stands today in onnv gate ?
Yes. -- meem
