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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADVnQy=ceATQE=9UCCJmHWaXP9FjMQoCVt_WNxpT9R0C__5BwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:02:45 -0500
From:	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Sébastien Barré <sebastien.barre@...ouvain.be>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Gregory Detal <gregory.detal@...ouvain.be>,
	Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] tcp: avoid reducing cwnd when ACK+DSACK is received

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:52 AM, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>>         if (flag & FLAG_DSACKING_ACK) {
>>                 /* This DSACK means original and TLP probe arrived; no loss */
>>                 tp->tlp_high_seq = 0;
>
> I think I'd add a 'return' here.

What's the benefit of adding 'return' in those two spots? That adds
extra code to read, with no change in behavior, and no increase in
maintainability.

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