David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When I was playing with this crap a long time ago I
> think I remember that sk->sk_forward_alloc can become
> negative in some circumstances.
>
> Or maybe that was just a bug :-)
Yeah we had a few bugs there in the early days of TSO but it's
been quiet
From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:40:51 +0100
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:55:43 -0800 (PST)
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please tell me if you are OK with this solution, or if you prefer
> I change sk_forward_alloc to be unsigned :)
When I was playing
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:55:43 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:18:40 +0100
>
> > Because sk_wmem_queued, sk_sndbuf are signed, a divide per two
> > forces compiler to use an integer divide. We can instead use
>
From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:18:40 +0100
> Because sk_wmem_queued, sk_sndbuf are signed, a divide per two
> forces compiler to use an integer divide. We can instead use
> a right shift.
>
> SK_STREAM_MEM_QUANTUM deserves to be declared as an unsigned
> quantity
