On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:44:59PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> It makes perfect sense. In your example, we want a 2*MSS TSO
> frame for the "not-SACKed" area, and the tail 1*MSS frame for
> the SACKed area. This provides exactly the necessary granularity
> in order to record the received SACK information. That's the
> whole point of splitting up the frame here in response to
> SACK blocks.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that pkt_len is an incorrect cut-off point,
but that it's not a valid value for the MSS. So I'd like to see
if (tcp_fragment(sk, skb, pkt_len, TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->tso_size))
break;
> Those statements are all equivalent to the "tp->{lost,left}_out -= diff;"
> code I added. We were subtracting out the old number, then adding in
> the new one, which is the same as just subtracting the difference in
> one go.
>
> At least, this simplification looked really nice to me :-)
You are absolutely right. I had missed your additions below :)
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
