On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 17:24:01 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > + /* Signal over-coalescing explicitly, it's a hard failure, unlike > + * under-coalescing which could be timing- or loss-related. > + */ > + if (num_pkt < correct_num_pkts && bytes_received == bytes_expected) > + error(EXIT_OVER_COALESCE, 0, > + "over-coalesced: got %d pkts vs expected %d (%d B)", > + num_pkt, correct_num_pkts, bytes_received);
Sashiko complains that this condition may mis-fire if we lose a zero-len RST or ACK. This is true, tho, if the device drops pure acks ignoring failures where ack disappeared puts us back at risk of false negatives. Happy to respin but feels like we only have bad choices here..
