[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:0.057 / U:0.680 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site