Em Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 03:42:52PM +0000, Gerrit Renker escreveu:
> Test Tree Inventory
> ===================
> 4. Support for passive-close without flushing unread data
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> This set actually involves only 5 patches, the last one is according to your
> suggestion.
>
> [DCCP]: Separate protocol states into general/specific
I dropped this one, see next explanation.
> [DCCP]: Make PARTOPEN an autonomous state
Here I made DCCP_PARTOPEN = TCP_MAX_STATES, that DCCP_INTRINSECS was not
used anywhere and this just means that states >= TCP_MAX_STATES are
DCCP only states.
> [DCCP]: Dedicated auxiliary states to support passive-close
I'll combine this with the next one.
> [DCCP]: Basic support for passive-close
What happens if we receive a second CloseReq or a second Close packet or
if the server performed an active close?
In all these cases we're leaking an skb, no? As dccp_rcv_close{req}
before always used dccp_fin there wasn't a need for returning a value
from these functions, but now we better return if we used the skb or
not, so that when back to __dccp_rcv_established and
dccp_rcv_state_process we can discard the packet.
- Arnaldo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
