On 1/6/07, Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to retract the change in the interface of update_li which we discussed recently.The reason is that the caller supplies `loss' parameters (a loss sequence number and a loss CCVal); the fact that in the current implementation this coincides with the fields hccrx->ccid3hcrx_seqno_nonloss and hcrx->ccid3hcrx_ccval_nonloss in ccid3_hc_rx_detect_loss is more of a coincidence.
I disagree with you on this. It's not a coincidence at all. I planned the code that way. It "happens" to have the right values because I put them there.
I have been going over this code several times and come to the conclusion that not changing the interface of update_li is the cleanest way. I have uploaded this to the online directory, below are the differences to Ian's original.
I disagree with this. However I can see some confusion because we are equating nonloss and loss variables and the variables are named badly in the loss interval code. What I've done is stuck with my original patch but changed the variable names seq_loss and win_loss to seq_nonloss and win_nonloss respectively. I've posted the new version online. Can you now use this one please? Ian -- 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
