On 1/5/07, Eddie Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You shouldn't need to iterate through the list, since i_mean is just
i_tot/w_tot, and w_tot is a constant. You do need to divide, though.
If it makes no difference to you I'd recommend going with the simpler version
-- the logic in dccp_li_hist_recalc_recalcloss is difficult to follow; I
wouldn't want to be on the hook for its correctness ;)
I'll have a look at it later on, but don't have much free time at
present due to family responsibilities. I've done quite a lot of
testing and believe to be correct, and have included a lot of the
thinking in the comments. The thing is that it doesn't actually
calculate i_mean itself so that same base calculation is used.
Also, the weights in dccp_li_hist_w appear to be wrong. They should be 5, 5,
5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, not 4,4,4,4,3,2,1,1, according to rfc3448.
I don't believe so. We've done this as per section 8 of RFC3448 and
divide by 4 rather than 5.
--
Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4
Blog: http://imcdnzl.blogspot.com
WAND Network Research Group
-
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
