[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:0.084 / U:31.876 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site