[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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:
    > 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,

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-02-13 17:01    [W:0.019 / U:87.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site