[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250218174754.150c82c3@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:47:54 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org,
kuniyu@...zon.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me,
haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, ykolal@...com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] tcp: add TCP_RTO_MAX_MIN_SEC definition
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:38:17 -0800 Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 2/16/25 7:42 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
> > Add minimum value definition as the lower bound of RTO MAX
> > set by users. No functional changes here.
>
> If it is no-op, why it is needed? The commit message didn't explain it either.
> I also cannot guess how patch 2 depends on patch 1.
FWIW this patch also gave me pause when looking at v1.
I don't think this define makes the code any easier to follow.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists