On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Michael Goulish wrote:
> Oh! Oh! Let me try! (see inline)
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > On 04/18/2013 06:21 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > > I spoke a bit too soon in my first reply. The tracking windows are
> > > *supposed* to be measured from the
Oh! Oh! Let me try! (see inline)
- Original Message -
> On 04/18/2013 06:21 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > I spoke a bit too soon in my first reply. The tracking windows are
> > *supposed* to be measured from the point where the tracker is first
> > assigned, so from when you call p
On 04/18/2013 06:21 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
I spoke a bit too soon in my first reply. The tracking windows are
*supposed* to be measured from the point where the tracker is first
assigned, so from when you call put or get. This means that it shouldn't
matter how many times you call recv or ho
I spoke a bit too soon in my first reply. The tracking windows are
*supposed* to be measured from the point where the tracker is first
assigned, so from when you call put or get. This means that it shouldn't
matter how many times you call recv or how much credit recv gives out, the
only thing that
That's a good question and now that you mention it nothing prevents it.
That was an intentional choice when the feature was added, and it wasn't a
problem at the time because we didn't have recv(-1). This meant that you
were always asking for an explicit amount and if you asked for more than
your w
