>
> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet
>
> A change of the comment might be good, to help future readers.
>
Okay, I've also changed the comments of SYN and SYNACK retries.
Alex
>From 11a292b1cff772f930a02fda02d5b741f8ea5033 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alexander Bergmann
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012
Acked-by: Eric Dumazet eduma...@google.com
A change of the comment might be good, to help future readers.
Okay, I've also changed the comments of SYN and SYNACK retries.
Alex
From 11a292b1cff772f930a02fda02d5b741f8ea5033 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alexander Bergmann a...@linlab.net
On 08/23/2012 02:15 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 13:58 +0200, Alex Bergmann wrote:
>> On 08/22/2012 06:41 PM, H.K. Jerry Chu wrote:
>
>>> This issue occurred to me right after I submitted the patch for RFC6298.
>>> I did not commit any more chang
On 08/22/2012 06:41 PM, H.K. Jerry Chu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Alex Bergmann mailto:a...@linlab.net>> wrote:
Hi David,
I'm not 100% sure, but it looks like I found an RFC mismatch with the
current default values of the TCP implementation.
Alex
On 08/22/2012 06:41 PM, H.K. Jerry Chu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Alex Bergmann a...@linlab.net
mailto:a...@linlab.net wrote:
Hi David,
I'm not 100% sure, but it looks like I found an RFC mismatch with the
current default values of the TCP implementation.
Alex
On 08/23/2012 02:15 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 13:58 +0200, Alex Bergmann wrote:
On 08/22/2012 06:41 PM, H.K. Jerry Chu wrote:
This issue occurred to me right after I submitted the patch for RFC6298.
I did not commit any more change because RFC compliance aside, 180secs
On 08/22/2012 10:58 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 10:48 +0200, Alex Bergmann wrote:
On 08/22/2012 10:06 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Prior to 9ad7c049 the timeout was defined with 189secs. Now we have only
a timeout of 63secs.
((2 << 5) - 1) * 3 secs = 18
On 08/22/2012 10:06 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Prior to 9ad7c049 the timeout was defined with 189secs. Now we have only
>> a timeout of 63secs.
>>
>> ((2 << 5) - 1) * 3 secs = 189 secs
>> ((2 << 5) - 1) * 1 secs = 63 secs
>
> Strange maths ... here I have :
>
> (1+2+4+8+16) * 3
On 08/22/2012 10:06 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Prior to 9ad7c049 the timeout was defined with 189secs. Now we have only
a timeout of 63secs.
((2 5) - 1) * 3 secs = 189 secs
((2 5) - 1) * 1 secs = 63 secs
Strange maths ... here I have :
(1+2+4+8+16) * 3 = 93 secs
vs
On 08/22/2012 10:58 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 10:48 +0200, Alex Bergmann wrote:
On 08/22/2012 10:06 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Prior to 9ad7c049 the timeout was defined with 189secs. Now we have only
a timeout of 63secs.
((2 5) - 1) * 3 secs = 189 secs
Hi David,
I'm not 100% sure, but it looks like I found an RFC mismatch with the
current default values of the TCP implementation.
Alex
>From 8b854a525eb45f64ad29dfab16f9d9f681e84495 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alexander Bergmann
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:29:08 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/1]
Hi David,
I'm not 100% sure, but it looks like I found an RFC mismatch with the
current default values of the TCP implementation.
Alex
From 8b854a525eb45f64ad29dfab16f9d9f681e84495 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alexander Bergmann a...@linlab.net
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:29:08 +0200
Subject:
12 matches
Mail list logo
