From: Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:02:47 -0700
+ if (!tcp_send_head(sk)) {
+ tp-snd_nxt++;
+ return;
+ }
I'm not so sure about this. Why is this needed?
Otherwise patch looks fine to me.
--
To
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 11:54 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:02:47 -0700
+ if (!tcp_send_head(sk)) {
+ tp-snd_nxt++;
+ return;
+ }
I'm not so sure about this. Why
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 09:16 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 11:54 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:02:47 -0700
+ if (!tcp_send_head(sk)) {
+ tp-snd_nxt++;
+
From: Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:48:12 -0700
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 09:16 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 11:54 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:02:47 -0700
+
On 04/21/2015 07:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Note that this patch adds a deadlock possibility in some stress
situations.
If a process owning some tcp socket dies, and tcp_mem[2] is already hit,
all sk_stream_alloc_skb() can return NULL and we loop in tcp_send_fin(),
making no progress because
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 08:48 -0500, Josh Hunt wrote:
On 04/21/2015 07:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Note that this patch adds a deadlock possibility in some stress
situations.
If a process owning some tcp socket dies, and tcp_mem[2] is already hit,
all sk_stream_alloc_skb() can return
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 01:11 -0500, Josh Hunt wrote:
On 03/24/2015 01:10 AM, David Miller wrote:
From: Josh Hunt joh...@akamai.com
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:36:24 -0500
Would it be possible to queue up 355a901e6cf1 (tcp: make connect()
mem charging friendly) for stable as well? That is
