netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] tcp: avoid reducing cwnd when ACK+DSACK is received

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADVnQy=A57TUYD=kGtZXvq7-FGSN=vN3D2heaNCnBB=zjujwUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Jan 2015 10:49:10 -0500
From:	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To:	Sébastien Barré <sebastien.barre@...ouvain.be>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Gregory Detal <gregory.detal@...ouvain.be>,
	Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@...gle.com>,
	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] tcp: avoid reducing cwnd when ACK+DSACK is received

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Sébastien Barré
<sebastien.barre@...ouvain.be> wrote:
> What do you and Neal think ?

My preference is to have the whole expression detecting the case where
the receiver got the probe packet encoded in a single expression. I
don't have a strong feeling about whether it should be stored in a
bool (to reduce the size of the diff) or written directly into the if
() expression (to reduce the size of the code). I'll defer to Eric on
which he thinks is better. :-)

neal
--
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