From: Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 09:50:51 -0700
> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 12:48 -0400, David Miller wrote: >> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:24:46 -0700 >> >> > Add a FLAG_NO_CHALLENGE_ACK so that tcp_rcv_state_process() >> > can choose to send a challenge ACK and discard the packet instead >> > of wrongly change socket state. >> >> Applied, but the tests end up being double-negatives so it might >> have been easier to understand if the flag was a positive rather >> than a negative value. > > I thought of this (and was in fact one of the patch I sent for internal > review at Google), but this was changing all tcp_ack() calls instead of > a single one ? > > Or maybe I am missing some easier way ? Indeed, it is a bit of churn to adjust all callers in order to make one test easier to read. I'm not so sure it's better or worth it...
