| To: | "Tomar, Nagendra" <nagendra_tomar@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: BUG in tcp_timer.c:tcp_retransmit_timer() |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:50:57 -0800 |
| Cc: | linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403292251520.27795-100000@localhost.localdomain> |
| References: | <20040329200954.7baac255.davem@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403292251520.27795-100000@localhost.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:54:14 +0530 (IST) Nagendra Singh Tomar <nagendra_tomar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thats right. But what about the other cases of retransmission > failures for which we are having a negative return (-ENOMEM, -EAGAIN, > -EHOSTUNREACH etc). Even for these cases its not a good idea to > artificially increment tp->retransmits, lest in some extreme case we might > timeout a connection without a single packet going on the wire. That's just like the packet getting dropped at the next hop, and not the case this branch of code intends to deal with. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: route cache DoS testing and softirqs, Srivatsa Vaddagiri |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: BUG in tcp_timer.c:tcp_retransmit_timer(), Nagendra Singh Tomar |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: BUG in tcp_timer.c:tcp_retransmit_timer(), Nagendra Singh Tomar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: BUG in tcp_timer.c:tcp_retransmit_timer(), Nagendra Singh Tomar |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |