Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:19:31 -0500 | From | William Allen Simpson <> | Subject | Re: [net-next PATCH v3 3/3] net: TCP thin dupack |
| |
Last year, I'm pretty sure I was on record as thinking this is *not* a good idea. But at least it now requires a sysctl to turn on, and should default to off.
Also that naming was a bit dicey. Now the names are more descriptive, but the "force" is a bit overkill.
How about: NET_TCP_FORCE_THIN_LINEAR_DUPACK -> NET_TCP_THIN_LINEAR_DUPACK tcp_force_thin_dupack -> tcp_thin_linear_dupack sysctl_tcp_force_thin_dupack -> sysctl_tcp_thin_linear_dupack
Andreas Petlund wrote: > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c > index 28e0296..c5a73ab 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c > @@ -89,6 +89,8 @@ int sysctl_tcp_frto __read_mostly = 2; > int sysctl_tcp_frto_response __read_mostly; > int sysctl_tcp_nometrics_save __read_mostly; > > +int sysctl_tcp_force_thin_dupack __read_mostly; > + > int sysctl_tcp_moderate_rcvbuf __read_mostly = 1;
Where is the sysctl initialized?
| |