From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:30:03 +0200 (EET)
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
Will do. I gather I should use the latest net- tree in future when
submitting patches.
Doh, I owe you apology as I was probably too hasty to point you towards
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
When Gavin respins the patch I'll look at in the context of submitting
it as a bug fix. So Gavin please generate the patch against Linus's
vanilla GIT tree or net-2.6, your choise.
The existing patch was against Linus' linux-2.6.git from a few days
From: Gavin McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:31:06 +
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
When Gavin respins the patch I'll look at in the context of submitting
it as a bug fix. So Gavin please generate the patch against Linus's
vanilla GIT tree or net-2.6,
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
When Gavin respins the patch I'll look at in the context of submitting
it as a bug fix. So Gavin please generate the patch against Linus's
vanilla GIT tree or net-2.6, your choise.
The existing patch
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
I'm just checking through the existing CA modules. I don't see the rtt
used for RTO anywhere. This is what I gather they're each using rtt for.
I meant more timeout like fashion (e.g., to timeout
Hi,
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
The last attempt didn't take account of the situation where a timestamp
wasn't available and tcp_clean_rtx_queue() has to feed both the RTO and the
congestion avoidance. This updated patch stores both RTTs, making the
delayed one available for
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
The last attempt didn't take account of the situation where a timestamp
wasn't available and tcp_clean_rtx_queue() has to feed both the RTO and the
congestion avoidance. This updated patch stores both RTTs, making the
delayed one available for the
Hi,
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
Isn't it also much better this way in a case where ACK losses happened,
taking the longest RTT in that case is clearly questionable as it
may over-estimate considerably.
Quite so.
However, another thing to consider is the possibility of this
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
Isn't it also much better this way in a case where ACK losses happened,
taking the longest RTT in that case is clearly questionable as it
may over-estimate considerably.
Quite so.
However, another
The last attempt didn't take account of the situation where a timestamp
wasn't available and tcp_clean_rtx_queue() has to feed both the RTO and the
congestion avoidance. This updated patch stores both RTTs, making the
delayed one available for the RTO and the other (ca_seq_rtt) available for
10 matches
Mail list logo
