Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:36:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:36:43 -0500 Received: from 102-209.196.48.dellhost.com ([209.196.48.102]:50449 "HELO mx-a.netli.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:36:24 -0500 Message-ID: <3A81A204.3020002@netli.com> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 11:29:08 -0800 From: Ramana Juvvadi Reply-To: juvvadi@netli.com Organization: Netli Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17-21mdk i686; en-US; Preview) Gecko/20001101 Beonex/0.6-pre X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Bug in tcp_time_to_recover Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Consider the following code in tcp_input.c ----------------------------------------------------------------- static int tcp_time_to_recover(struct sock *sk, struct tcp_opt *tp) { /* Trick#1: The loss is proven. */ if (tp->lost_out) return 1; /* Not-A-Trick#2 : Classic rule... */ if (tcp_fackets_out(tp) > tp->reordering) ^^^^^^^^^ return 1; /* Trick#3: It is still not OK... But will it be useful to delay * recovery more? */ if (tp->packets_out <= tp->reordering && tp->sacked_out >= max(tp->packets_out/2, sysctl_tcp_reordering) && !tcp_may_send_now(sk, tp)) { /* We have nothing to send. This connection is limited * either by receiver window or by application. */ return 1; } return 0; } ---------------------------------------------------- Shouldn't it be a >= instead of > ? Ramana - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/