[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1402092328270.8418@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 23:30:32 +0100 (CET)
From: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
trivial@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH][Trivial] tcp: correct code comment stating 3 min timeout
for FIN_WAIT2, we only do 1 min
As far as I can tell we have used a default of 60 seconds for
FIN_WAIT2 timeout for ages (since 2.x times??).
In any case, the timeout these days is 60 seconds, so the 3 min
comment is wrong (and cost me a few minutes of my life when I was
debugging a FIN_WAIT2 related problem in a userspace application and
checked the kernel source for details).
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
---
net/ipv4/tcp.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
index 4475b3b..9f3a2db 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
@@ -2229,7 +2229,7 @@ adjudge_to_death:
/* This is a (useful) BSD violating of the RFC. There is a
* problem with TCP as specified in that the other end could
* keep a socket open forever with no application left this end.
- * We use a 3 minute timeout (about the same as BSD) then kill
+ * We use a 1 minute timeout (about the same as BSD) then kill
* our end. If they send after that then tough - BUT: long enough
* that we won't make the old 4*rto = almost no time - whoops
* reset mistake.
--
1.7.1
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
--
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