On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, David S. Miller wrote:
> 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.
>
I understand your point, but we should try our best to retransmit uptill
the "max retransmission count". Packets can be dropped at any hop,
but thats excatly why TCP doess a large number of retransmissions,
before giving up. Whats wrong in having the check as
if (tcp_retransmit_skb(sk, skb_peek(&sk->write_queue)) != 0)
so that we take care of both the cases. Does it have any bad effects ?
Thanx,
tomar
-- You have moved the mouse. Windows must be restarted for the
changes to take effect.
|