Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:50:19 +0100 | From | Andreas Petlund <> | Subject | Re: [net-next PATCH v3 3/3] net: TCP thin dupack |
| |
On 12. feb. 2010 12:19, William Allen Simpson wrote: > 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
You uncovered a copy/paste/edit-typo there. The term "linear" had snuck in even though it does not make sense for this patch. I think that NET_TCP_THIN_DUPACK, tcp_thin_dupack and sysctl_tcp_thin_dupack will be better.
Best regards, Andreas
| |