It's possible that new SACK blocks that should trigger new LOST
markings arrive with new data (which previously made is_dupack
false). In addition, I think this fixes a case where we get
a cumulative ACK with enough SACK blocks to trigger the fast
recovery (is_dupack would be false there too).
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:19:40 +0300 (EEST)
It's possible that new SACK blocks that should trigger new LOST
markings arrive with new data (which previously made is_dupack
false). In addition, I think this fixes a case where we get
a cumulative ACK with
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:19:40 +0300 (EEST)
I'm not completely pleased with this solution because readability
of the code is somewhat questionable as 'is_dupack' in SACK case
is no longer about dupacks only
