On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 03:21:08PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> I didn't do it because tcp_var.h is where tcp keeps all of it's prototypes
> but I don't mind moving them into tcp_input.c. Any objections? Otherwise
> I'll check in the diff below.
ok job@
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 03:21:08PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> I didn't do it because tcp_var.h is where tcp keeps all of it's prototypes
> but I don't mind moving them into tcp_input.c. Any objections? Otherwise
> I'll check in the diff below.
Regression tests pass.
OK bluhm@
> diff --git
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 13:37 +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 24/10/17(Tue) 12:27, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:05 +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > On 21/10/17(Sat) 15:17, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 22:59 +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > >
On 24/10/17(Tue) 12:27, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:05 +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > On 21/10/17(Sat) 15:17, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 22:59 +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > > The comments for both void tcp_{sack,newreno}_partialack() still
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:05 +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 21/10/17(Sat) 15:17, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 22:59 +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > The comments for both void tcp_{sack,newreno}_partialack() still mention
> > > tp->snd_last and return value bits.
> > >
On 21/10/17(Sat) 15:17, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 22:59 +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > The comments for both void tcp_{sack,newreno}_partialack() still mention
> > tp->snd_last and return value bits.
> >
>
> Good eyes! It made me spot a mistake I made by folding two lines
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 22:59 +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> The comments for both void tcp_{sack,newreno}_partialack() still mention
> tp->snd_last and return value bits.
>
Good eyes! It made me spot a mistake I made by folding two lines
into an incorrect ifdef in tcp_sack_partialack. I
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 09:07:20PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> This is a small and not intrusive refactoring of partial ACK handling
> but it certainly doesn't look like one. It's intended to be applied
> after the TCP SACK diff that I've sent earlier and basically moves the
> conditional
