ok. Please take a look at the new webrev and let me know. http://npt.sfbay/net/infotech/export/stk-fix/webrev/
Thanks Thirumalai Peter Memishian wrote: > > > > Here is a simple fix for 6791375. The panic is easily reproducible > with > > > > netperf and snoop of lo0. So I have been able to test it easily. > > > > > > > > Webrev http://npt.sfbay/net/infotech/export/stk-fix/webrev/ > > > > > > I'm confused why we don't check both the local and peer tcp_xmit_head > > > fields in tcp_fuse(). It seems odd to have one check in tcp_fuse() > > > and the other at the tcp_fuse() call site. > > > > > > One other nit: you have "re-enable" in one place and "reenable" in the > > > other. (It was also probably a mistake to name the field tcp_refuse > > > rather than tcp_re_fuse :-/) > > > > To get the peer, we have to do a tcp lookup. That is done in tcp_fuse(). > > It is just an optimization to call tcp_fuse only after checking our own > > tcp_xmit_head instead of calling tcp_fuse() all the time. > > Is it a worthwhile optimization? Seems like complexity for an edge case. > >
