| To: | Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] TCP Vegas for 2.6 |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:37:23 -0800 |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040308134542.62320cae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20040308130454.0442c04d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040308212156.GE26401@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040308133009.1e068199@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040308213646.GH26401@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040308134542.62320cae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:45:42 -0800 Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > There is redundancy in the control block now, perhaps that could be squished, > fields that are only used during connection setup or if other things are true. > Also there seems to be several one byte wide booleans that could be collapsed > to bits. That's right, and this is where we should concentrate our efforts. The things that are truly unique in the TCB for westwood and vegas are actually quite small. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] TCP Vegas for 2.6, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Cleaner way to conditionally disallow a CONFIG option as static, Sridhar Samudrala |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] TCP Vegas for 2.6, Stephen Hemminger |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] TCP Vegas for 2.6, John Heffner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |