Re: [PATCH] Fix sorting of SACK blocks

2007-01-26 Thread David Miller
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:40:09 +0200 > You actually need recv_sack_cache to detect if you can use the fast > path. Another alternative is to somehow hash the values of the sack > blocks but then you rely on probabilty that you will properly detect the > abili

Re: [PATCH] Fix sorting of SACK blocks

2007-01-25 Thread Baruch Even
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070126 01:55]: > From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:29:03 +0200 > > > The sorting of SACK blocks actually munges them rather than sort, causing > > the > > TCP stack to ignore some SACK information and breaking the assumption of >

Re: [PATCH] Fix sorting of SACK blocks

2007-01-25 Thread David Miller
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:29:03 +0200 > The sorting of SACK blocks actually munges them rather than sort, causing the > TCP stack to ignore some SACK information and breaking the assumption of > ordered SACK blocks after sorting. > > The sort takes the data f

Re: [PATCH] Fix sorting of SACK blocks

2007-01-25 Thread David Miller
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:29:03 +0200 > The sorting of SACK blocks actually munges them rather than sort, causing the > TCP stack to ignore some SACK information and breaking the assumption of > ordered SACK blocks after sorting. > > The sort takes the data f

Re: [PATCH] Fix sorting of SACK blocks

2007-01-25 Thread Baruch Even
* Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070125 20:47]: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:29:03 +0200 > Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The sorting of SACK blocks actually munges them rather than sort, causing > > the > > TCP stack to ignore some SACK information and breaking the assumption o

[PATCH] Fix sorting of SACK blocks

2007-01-25 Thread Baruch Even
The sorting of SACK blocks actually munges them rather than sort, causing the TCP stack to ignore some SACK information and breaking the assumption of ordered SACK blocks after sorting. The sort takes the data from a second buffer which isn't moved causing subsequent data moves to occur from the w

Re: [PATCH] Fix sorting of SACK blocks

2007-01-25 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:29:03 +0200 Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The sorting of SACK blocks actually munges them rather than sort, causing the > TCP stack to ignore some SACK information and breaking the assumption of > ordered SACK blocks after sorting. > > The sort takes the data fro