Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> wrote: > > Got it. But a question: why tcp_tw_recycle can be removed totally? > > it is also part of uAPI > > Good question, perhaps with tcp_tw_recycle we wanted to make sure users > who depended on it notice removal, since the feature was broken by > design? > > tcp_low_latency is an optimization, not functionality which users may > depend on. > > But I may be wrong so CCing authors.
I guess it was just a case of 'noone noticed'. I'm not sure if anyone would notice dropping lowlatency sysctl, was just a case of 'overly careful'. Personally I'd rather have them gone so 'sysctl tcp.bla' shows if the feature exists/does something.
