On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 10:18 AM Wesley Atwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I still think 2/3 is a legitimate fix. To clarify, I was not trying to > claim that 84 is some magic number in the abstract, and I agree the > packetdrill is artificial. > > My point was only that, in the constructed case, the old code can > preserve a scaled window that is larger than the currently backed > receive space, while 2/3 keeps the stored window representable in > scaled units. > That said, I am probably missing the reason why that is not a problem > according to the feedback you all have given. > > So I am going to drop it here. > > To be clear this has nothing to do with social engineering, just was > trying to fix something that doesn't need fixed I suppose.
We have limited time and many bugs to review. Your series really lacks the signal explaining why it's needed and why it's important. What real workload suffers from the current behavior. Thanks.
