From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:21:03 +0000 Subject: Re: Test tree patch inventory - update Message-Id: <20071121002103.GB24995@ghostprotocols.net> List-Id: References: <20071120201041.GA24995@ghostprotocols.net> In-Reply-To: <20071120201041.GA24995@ghostprotocols.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dccp@vger.kernel.org Em Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 03:42:52PM +0000, Gerrit Renker escreveu: > Test Tree Inventory > ========= > 4. Support for passive-close without flushing unread data > --------------------------------------------------------- > This set actually involves only 5 patches, the last one is according to your suggestion. > > [DCCP]: Separate protocol states into general/specific I dropped this one, see next explanation. > [DCCP]: Make PARTOPEN an autonomous state Here I made DCCP_PARTOPEN = TCP_MAX_STATES, that DCCP_INTRINSECS was not used anywhere and this just means that states >= TCP_MAX_STATES are DCCP only states. > [DCCP]: Dedicated auxiliary states to support passive-close I'll combine this with the next one. > [DCCP]: Basic support for passive-close What happens if we receive a second CloseReq or a second Close packet or if the server performed an active close? In all these cases we're leaking an skb, no? As dccp_rcv_close{req} before always used dccp_fin there wasn't a need for returning a value from these functions, but now we better return if we used the skb or not, so that when back to __dccp_rcv_established and dccp_rcv_state_process we can discard the packet. - Arnaldo