From: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:11:09 -0500
> My first patch was broken anyway (should not have pulled the test from
> tso_should_defer), and the change is not needed to the nagle test since
> it's implicit. This patch just restores the old behavior from before
Rick Jones wrote:
John Heffner wrote:
David Miller wrote:
However, I can't think of any reason why the cwnd test should not
apply.
Care to elaborate here? You can view the FIN special case as an off
by one error in the CWND test, it's not going to melt the internet.
:-)
True, it's not g
John Heffner wrote:
David Miller wrote:
However, I can't think of any reason why the cwnd test should not apply.
Care to elaborate here? You can view the FIN special case as an off
by one error in the CWND test, it's not going to melt the internet.
:-)
True, it's not going to melt the in
David Miller wrote:
However, I can't think of any reason why the cwnd test should not
apply.
Care to elaborate here? You can view the FIN special case as an off
by one error in the CWND test, it's not going to melt the internet.
:-)
True, it's not going to melt the internet, but why stop at
David Miller wrote:
From: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:58:18 -0500
This is especially important with TSO enabled. Currently, it will send
a burst of up to 64k at the end of a connection, even when cwnd is much
smaller than 64k. This patch still lets out empty FI
From: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:02:19 -0500
> David Miller wrote:
> > From: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:58:18 -0500
> >
> >> This is especially important with TSO enabled. Currently, it will send
> >> a burst of up to 64k at th
From: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:58:18 -0500
> This is especially important with TSO enabled. Currently, it will send
> a burst of up to 64k at the end of a connection, even when cwnd is much
> smaller than 64k. This patch still lets out empty FIN packets, but d
