From: Wei Yongjun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:40:37 -0400
> I have changed my patch with your advice and it looks more effective.
...
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This looks very nice, patch applied. Thank you very much.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: sen
I have changed my patch with your advice and it looks more effective.
On Monday 24 July 2006 17:22, David Miller wrote:
> From: Wei Yongjun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 05:19:54 -0400
>
> > In my test, those direct state transition can not be counted to
> > tcpAttemptFails. Followi
From: Wei Yongjun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 05:19:54 -0400
> In my test, those direct state transition can not be counted to
> tcpAttemptFails. Following is my patch:
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This change can be implemented more simply, I believe.
Excep
Refer to RFC2012, tcpAttemptFails is defined as following:
tcpAttemptFails OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Counter32
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The number of times TCP connections have made a direct
transition to the CLOSED s
