From: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: dccp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH-UPDATE]: 3f_CCID3_refactor_loss_interval_code_McDonald.diff
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:55:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200701051455.16936@strip-the-willow> (raw)
I would like to retract the change in the interface of update_li which we discussed recently.
The reason is that the caller supplies `loss' parameters (a loss sequence number and a loss
CCVal); the fact that in the current implementation this coincides with the fields
hccrx->ccid3hcrx_seqno_nonloss and
hcrx->ccid3hcrx_ccval_nonloss
in ccid3_hc_rx_detect_loss is more of a coincidence. I have been going over this code several
times and come to the conclusion that not changing the interface of update_li is the cleanest
way. I have uploaded this to the online directory, below are the differences to Ian's original.
==> This is the `meta-diff' between original diff and the new diff:
--- b/net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.c
+++ b/net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.c
@@ -842,7 +842,8 @@
while (dccp_delta_seqno(hcrx->ccid3hcrx_seqno_nonloss, seqno)
> TFRC_RECV_NUM_LATE_LOSS) {
loss = 1;
- dccp_li_update_li(sk);
+ dccp_li_update_li(sk, hcrx->ccid3hcrx_seqno_nonloss,
+ hcrx->ccid3hcrx_ccval_nonloss);
tmp_seqno = hcrx->ccid3hcrx_seqno_nonloss;
dccp_inc_seqno(&tmp_seqno);
hcrx->ccid3hcrx_seqno_nonloss = tmp_seqno;
--- b/net/dccp/ccids/lib/loss_interval.c
+++ b/net/dccp/ccids/lib/loss_interval.c
@@ -248,13 +248,11 @@
return 1000000 / p;
}
-void dccp_li_update_li(struct sock *sk)
+void dccp_li_update_li(struct sock *sk, u64 seq_loss, u8 win_loss)
{
struct ccid3_hc_rx_sock *hcrx = ccid3_hc_rx_sk(sk);
struct dccp_li_hist_entry *head;
u64 seq_temp;
- u64 seq_loss = hcrx->ccid3hcrx_seqno_nonloss;
- u8 win_loss = hcrx->ccid3hcrx_ccval_nonloss;
if (list_empty(&hcrx->ccid3hcrx_li_hist)) {
if (!dccp_li_hist_interval_new(&hcrx->ccid3hcrx_li_hist,
--- b/net/dccp/ccids/lib/loss_interval.h
+++ b/net/dccp/ccids/lib/loss_interval.h
@@ -36,3 +36,3 @@
-extern void dccp_li_update_li(struct sock *sk);
+extern void dccp_li_update_li(struct sock *sk, u64 seq_loss, u8 win_loss);
#endif /* _DCCP_LI_HIST_ */
next reply other threads:[~2007-01-05 14:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-05 14:55 Gerrit Renker [this message]
2007-01-06 19:29 ` [PATCH-UPDATE]: 3f_CCID3_refactor_loss_interval_code_McDonald.diff Ian McDonald
2007-01-08 9:29 ` Gerrit Renker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200701051455.16936@strip-the-willow \
--to=gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk \
--cc=dccp@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.