On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > because I tested this one (at least the non-timedout part worked)
...meant that timedout wasn't that throughoutly tested with such a simple testcase I used (only FACK was tested). -- i.
- [RFC PATCH] [TCP]: Reworked recovery's TCPCB_LOST marking f... Ilpo Järvinen
- Re: [RFC PATCH] [TCP]: Reworked recovery's TCPCB_LOST ... Ilpo Järvinen
- Re: [RFC PATCH] [TCP]: Reworked recovery's TCPCB_LOST ... Baruch Even
- Re: [RFC PATCH] [TCP]: Reworked recovery's TCPCB_L... David Miller
- Re: [RFC PATCH] [TCP]: Reworked recovery's TCP... Baruch Even
- Re: [RFC PATCH] [TCP]: Reworked recovery's... David Miller
- [PATCH 1/2] [TCP]: Add highest_sack seqno,... Ilpo Järvinen
- [RFC PATCH 2/2] [TCP]: Reworked recov... Ilpo Järvinen
- Re: [RFC PATCH] [TCP]: Reworked recovery's TCPCB_L... Ilpo Järvinen
