[lkml]   [1998]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: bug in 2.1.89 include/net/sock.h?

    On Sun, 22 Mar 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
    > Your analysis is slightly flawed. ACK frames are a legitimate resource and
    > need resource management like anything else. The wakeups are a valid issue,
    > however I dont think we can simply forget about resource management of ack
    > frames. Whether they should be charged to the socket or to some seperate
    > ack resource is a good question. That resource itself has to be vaguely
    > fairly shared.

    How about a "per-route" thing? If the ack's aren't going out on a certain
    route, there is no point in charging the overhead to the socket, because
    all sockets with that route will have the same problem.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.018 / U:1.948 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site