On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:40 +0200 (EET)
>
> > Besides the log(n) search for which patches already exists, only O(new
> > information) scan start..end range would be necessary. Or had you
> > something els
From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:40 +0200 (EET)
> Besides the log(n) search for which patches already exists, only O(new
> information) scan start..end range would be necessary. Or had you
> something else in mind (I'm not that sure what the "ideas", in plur
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:37:33 +0200
>
> > Key points of this patch are:
> >
> > - In case new SACK information is advance only type, no skb
> > processing below previously discovered highest point is d
From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:37:33 +0200
> Key points of this patch are:
>
> - In case new SACK information is advance only type, no skb
> processing below previously discovered highest point is done
> - Optimize cases below highest point too since t
Key points of this patch are:
- In case new SACK information is advance only type, no skb
processing below previously discovered highest point is done
- Optimize cases below highest point too since there's no need
to always go up to highest point (which is very likely still
present
