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
>> >
>> > > + 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.
>> >
>>
>> I guess I need to add a comment then ;)
>>
>> If we want to pretend FIN was sent, we also need to tweak tp->snd_nxt to
>> match new tskb->end_seq (or tp->write_seq).
>>
>> I tested following packetdrill script and confirmed that if I do not
>> tweak snd_nxt, last packet sent is incorrect :
>>
>> > . 5001:5001(0) ack 2
>>
>> This might be because our stack relies that we never coalesce something
>> on one already sent skb (we do this check in tcp_sendmsg() for example)
>
> Well, real reason is that tp->snd_nxt is not touched in retransmit
> paths, but when new data is sent (tcp_event_new_data_sent())
That makes sense, thanks for explaining.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
