On Sunday 18 November 2012 16:50:32 Alexander Stadler wrote: > Nobody here to answer the rather simple question? (see below)
I don't think these patches are important enough to trigger a kernel rebuild for all AA targets, but that is just my opinion. > > On Sa, 10.11.2012, 19:15, Alexander Stadler wrote: > > Can someone please answer what the criterias for backports into > > attitude_adjustment are? > > Jow just closes it as a ticket (https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/12355). > > And no response here. > > Thats not so great for collaboration. > > In this case I ask because of r33686 and r33687 (r33887), see below. > > > > Thanks > > > > Alex > > > > On Mi, 7.11.2012, 22:38, Alexander Stadler wrote: > >> This and the following patch went into trunk r33686 and r33687 (r33887). > >> What are the criterias for backports into attitude_adjustment? > >> I'm asking because some make it into there directly and if this went > >> upstream i thought its going to be a canditate soon. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Alex > >> > >> On Mo, 1.10.2012, 17:49, Dave Täht wrote: > >>> From: Dave Taht <[email protected]> > >>> > >>> Bugfix from linux head - don't delay acks from ECN congestion > >>> experienced in some situations. > >>> --- > >>> ...net-next-tcp-ecn-dont-delay-ACKS-after-CE.patch | 63 > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+) > >>> create mode 100644 > >>> target/linux/generic/patches-3.3/050-net-next-tcp-ecn-dont-delay-ACKS-after-CE.patch > >>> > >>> diff --git > >>> a/target/linux/generic/patches-3.3/050-net-next-tcp-ecn-dont-delay-ACKS-after-CE.patch > >>> b/target/linux/generic/patches-3.3/050-net-next-tcp-ecn-dont-delay-ACKS-after-CE.patch > >>> new file mode 100644 > >>> index 0000000..547e4fa > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ > >>> b/target/linux/generic/patches-3.3/050-net-next-tcp-ecn-dont-delay-ACKS-after-CE.patch > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ > >>> +From patchwork Mon Aug 6 21:04:43 2012 > >>> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >>> +MIME-Version: 1.0 > >>> +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >>> +Subject: [net-next] tcp: ecn: dont delay ACKS after CE > >>> +Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:04:43 -0000 > >>> +From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> > >>> +X-Patchwork-Id: 175453 > >>> +Message-Id: <1344287083.26674.83.camel@edumazet-glaptop> > >>> +To: David Miller <[email protected]> > >>> +Cc: netdev <[email protected]>, > >>> + Neal Cardwell <[email protected]> > >>> + > >>> +From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> > >>> + > >>> +While playing with CoDel and ECN marking, I discovered a > >>> +non optimal behavior of receiver of CE (Congestion Encountered) > >>> +segments. > >>> + > >>> +In pathological cases, sender has reduced its cwnd to low values, > >>> +and receiver delays its ACK (by 40 ms). > >>> + > >>> +While RFC 3168 6.1.3 (The TCP Receiver) doesn't explicitly recommend > >>> +to send immediate ACKS, we believe its better to not delay ACKS, > >>> because > >>> +a CE segment should give same signal than a dropped segment, and its > >>> +quite important to reduce RTT to give ECE/CWR signals as fast as > >>> +possible. > >>> + > >>> +Note we already call tcp_enter_quickack_mode() from TCP_ECN_check_ce() > >>> +if we receive a retransmit, for the same reason. > >>> + > >>> +Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> > >>> +Cc: Neal Cardwell <[email protected]> > >>> +Acked-by: Neal Cardwell <[email protected]> > >>> + > >>> +--- > >>> +net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 6 +++++- > >>> + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> + > >>> + > >>> + > >>> +-- > >>> +To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > >>> +the body of a message to [email protected] > >>> +More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >>> + > >>> +diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c > >>> +index 2fd2bc9..fa2c2c2 100644 > >>> +--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c > >>> ++++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c > >>> +@@ -237,7 +237,11 @@ static inline void TCP_ECN_check_ce(struct > >>> tcp_sock > >>> *tp, const struct sk_buff *s > >>> + tcp_enter_quickack_mode((struct sock *)tp); > >>> + break; > >>> + case INET_ECN_CE: > >>> +- tp->ecn_flags |= TCP_ECN_DEMAND_CWR; > >>> ++ if (!(tp->ecn_flags & TCP_ECN_DEMAND_CWR)) { > >>> ++ /* Better not delay acks, sender can have a > >>> very low cwnd */ > >>> ++ tcp_enter_quickack_mode((struct sock *)tp); > >>> ++ tp->ecn_flags |= TCP_ECN_DEMAND_CWR; > >>> ++ } > >>> + /* fallinto */ > >>> + default: > >>> + tp->ecn_flags |= TCP_ECN_SEEN; > >>> -- > >>> 1.7.9.5 > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> openwrt-devel mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > >>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> openwrt-devel mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openwrt-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
