From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:41:27 +0200
> We clear the unused parts of the SACK cache, This prevents us from mistakenly
> taking the cache data if the old data in the SACK cache is the same as the
> data
> in the SACK block. This assumes that we never receive a
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:22:52 +0200
> * David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070131 22:52]:
> > We should never see a SACK block from sequence zero to zero,
> > which would be an empty SACK block.
>
> That would work as well at the cost of extra writing to memo
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070131 22:52]:
> From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:13:49 +0200
>
> > When we check for SACK fast path make sure that we also have the same
> > number of
> > SACK blocks in the cache and in the new SACK data. This prevents us from
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:13:49 +0200
> When we check for SACK fast path make sure that we also have the same number
> of
> SACK blocks in the cache and in the new SACK data. This prevents us from
> mistakenly taking the cache data if the old data in the SACK
When we check for SACK fast path make sure that we also have the same number of
SACK blocks in the cache and in the new SACK data. This prevents us from
mistakenly taking the cache data if the old data in the SACK cache is the same
as the data in the SACK block.
Signed-Off-By: Baruch Even <[EMAIL
