[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100828.161320.245404727.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: hkchu@...gle.com
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, hannemann@...s.rwth-aachen.de,
hagen@...u.net, lars.eggert@...ia.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP_USER_TIMEOUT: a new socket option to specify max
timeout before a TCP connection is aborted
From: "H.K. Jerry Chu" <hkchu@...gle.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:13:28 -0700
> @@ -556,7 +559,14 @@ static void tcp_keepalive_timer (unsigned long data)
> elapsed = keepalive_time_elapsed(tp);
>
> if (elapsed >= keepalive_time_when(tp)) {
> - if (icsk->icsk_probes_out >= keepalive_probes(tp)) {
> + /* If the TCP_USER_TIMEOUT option is enabled, use that
> + * to determine when to timeout instead.
> + */
> + if ((icsk->icsk_user_timeout != 0 &&
> + elapsed >= icsk->icsk_user_timeout &&
> + icsk->icsk_probes_out > 0) ||
> + (icsk->icsk_user_timeout == 0 &&
> + icsk->icsk_probes_out >= keepalive_probes(tp))) {
> tcp_send_active_reset(sk, GFP_ATOMIC);
> tcp_write_err(sk);
> goto out;
I think if we want to add a socket option which overrides, it makes
more sense to provide overrides in the same units. This
transformation here is transforming a check against apples into a
check against oranges.
But if that's how this thing is specified, so be it... I guess. :-/
--
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