[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B76CA28.5060709@simula.no>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:50:00 +0100
From: Andreas Petlund <apetlund@...ula.no>
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ilpo Järvinen
<ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Arnd Hannemann <hannemann@...s.rwth-aachen.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, shemminger@...tta.com,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, damian@....rwth-aachen.de
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] net: TCP thin linear timeouts
On 12. feb. 2010 12:19, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Last year, I'm pretty sure I was on record as thinking this is only a
> marginally good idea, that would be better at the application layer.
>
> Also that naming was a bit dicey. Now the names are more descriptive,
> but the "force" is a bit overkill.
>
> How about?
> NET_TCP_FORCE_THIN_LINEAR_TIMEOUTS -> NET_TCP_THIN_LINEAR_TIMEOUTS
> TCP_THIN_LT -> TCP_THIN_LINEAR_TIMEOUTS
> TCP_THIN_LT_RETRIES -> TCP_THIN_LINEAR_RETRIES
> tcp_force_thin_linear_timeouts -> tcp_thin_linear_timeouts
> sysctl_tcp_force_thin_linear_timeouts -> sysctl_tcp_thin_linear_timeouts
> tp->thin_lt -> tp->thin_lto
>
> The latter mostly traditional "to" for "timeout", as used most everywhere.
>
I agree that the _force_-part should be taken out for both patches, and
renaming the lt to lto also makes sense. I'll fix it in the next iteration.
> Just for efficiency, I'd reorder this
> + if (sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED &&
> + (tp->thin_lt || sysctl_tcp_force_thin_linear_timeouts) &&
> + tcp_stream_is_thin(sk) &&
> + icsk->icsk_retransmits <= TCP_THIN_LT_RETRIES) {
Thank you for this suggestion. I'll reorder in the next iteration.
Best regards,
Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists