| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: FIN_WAIT1 / TCP_CORK / 2.2 -- reproducible bug and test case |
| From: | Martin Pool <mbp@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:59:10 +1000 |
| Cc: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Alan.Cox@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20020926.134608.31605412.davem@redhat.com> |
| References: | <20020926054721.GA6039@samba.org> <200209261309.RAA17837@sex.inr.ac.ru> <20020926.134608.31605412.davem@redhat.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4i |
On 26 Sep 2002, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:09:11 +0400 (MSD) > > I do not understand why tcp_push_pending_frames() was not used > there... maybe, there was some reason not to use it. > > Dave, do you not remember this? So where does this leave us? Was the patch we came up with correct? It looks reasonable to me, but I don't know the stack well enough to be sure. I think it would be nice if it could be fixed in 2.2. Let me know if there's anything I can do by way of testing, etc. -- Martin |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [VLAN] VLAN patches, Matti Aarnio |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: FIN_WAIT1 / TCP_CORK / 2.2 -- reproducible bug and test case, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: FIN_WAIT1 / TCP_CORK / 2.2 -- reproducible bug and test case, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: FIN_WAIT1 / TCP_CORK / 2.2 -- reproducible bug and test case, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |