Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:43:24 +0100 (CET) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: TCP window updates [Was: PROBLEM: Sending mail-attachment] |
| |
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Matthias Moeller wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, David Miller wrote: > >> People seem to have their understanding of these roles reversed.
Note: I never thought that the probe0 would assure ack reliability.
>You are right, Andrea and me where wrong. Anyway I think I got closer
As said above my last patch (or DaveM latest patch) was not intended to assure reliability of the receiver ack, but just to don't care if the ack from the receiver would be dropped. If it would be dropped the sender now using probe0 is just able to request the ack again or to send out a fragmented packet (if the snd_window wasn't really 0 yet).
And the patch from DaveM gone in 2.2.3 is sure obviously right and _necessary_ to allow the receiver to advertise the new window ASAP, but as I just pointed out the last _late_ night is _not_ the fix for the _deadlock_ because I still think there _was_n't a mechanism that would allow the connection to go ahead if the ack sent by the receiver during the read(2) would be dropped by the netowrk.
Andrea Arcangeli
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |