On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:27:03 +0300 (EEST)
Ilpo Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Baruch Even wrote:
* Ilpo J?rvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070527 14:16]:
Thus, my original question basically culminates in this: should
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:27:03 +0300 (EEST)
Ilpo Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
[PATCH] [TCP]: Fix GSO ignorance of pkts_acked arg (cong.cntrl modules)
Yes, thanks for fixing this. Wonder how it
On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:07:00 +0300 (EEST)
Ilpo Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:27:03 +0300 (EEST)
Ilpo Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
[PATCH] [TCP]: Fix GSO
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:07:00 +0300 (EEST)
Ilpo Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Since we don't invoke congestion control modules until after the SYN
handshake this is not a problem.
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Baruch Even wrote:
* Ilpo J?rvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070527 14:16]:
Thus, my original question basically culminates in this: should cc
modules be passed number of packets acked or number of skbs acked?
...The latter
On Sat, 26 May 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 11:35:53 +0300
Dave, you could consider applying other than the last one if they
seem ok to you too (you'll need to rebase your tcp-2.6 in that case
first to apply cleanly those that
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 10:58:27 +0300 (EEST)
On Sat, 26 May 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 11:35:53 +0300
Dave, you could consider applying other than the last one if they
seem ok to you
On Sun, 27 May 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 10:58:27 +0300 (EEST)
While you're in the right context (reviewing patch 8), you could also
look if tcp_clean_rtx_queue does a right thing when passing a strange
pkts_acked to
* Ilpo J?rvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070527 14:16]:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Ilpo_J?rvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 10:58:27 +0300 (EEST)
While you're in the right context (reviewing patch 8), you could also
look if tcp_clean_rtx_queue does a
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Baruch Even wrote:
* Ilpo J?rvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070527 14:16]:
Thus, my original question basically culminates in this: should cc
modules be passed number of packets acked or number of skbs acked?
...The latter makes no sense to me unless the value is intented
Hi,
Here are some changes to TCP I've been baking. Before doing this
patchset, I rebased tcp-2.6 branch to the current net-2.6 (goes
almost cleanly) because there are some depencies to the TCP work in
there.
I booted these today and no very obvious problems showed up (OOPSes,
BUG()s, reported
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 11:35:53 +0300
Dave, you could consider applying other than the last one if they
seem ok to you too (you'll need to rebase your tcp-2.6 in that case
first to apply cleanly those that touch tcp_sync_left_out :-)).
Absolutely, I'll do
12 matches
Mail list logo
