On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Actually, TUX-1.1 (Ingo, do I not lie, did you not kill this code?) > does this. It does not ack quickly, when complete request is received > and still not answered, so that all the redundant acks disappear. (it's TUX 2.0 meanwhile), and yes, TUX uses it. We speculatively delay ACK of parsed input packet in the hope of merging it with the first output packet. If the output frame does not happen for 200 msecs then we send a standalone ACK to be RFC-conform. This way TUX can do single-packet web replies for small requests. (well, plus SYN-ACK and FIN-ACK) Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all... Ingo Molnar
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all... Linus Torvalds
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all... kuznet
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all... Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all... dean gaudet
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all... dean gaudet
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (... Andi Kleen
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sex... Rick Jones
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all tha... Andi Kleen
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all tha... kuznet
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all... Ingo Molnar
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all... Rick Jones
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (... Ingo Molnar
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sex... Linus Torvalds
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all tha... Ingo Molnar
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]] Dan Kegel
- Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]] Cacophonix