Re: [PATCH 0/2] Re: Do piggybacked ACKs work

[Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>]

Doug Graham wrote:
> Hi Vlad,
> 
> I'm probably just being stupid, but I can't figure out which version of
> output.c your patch
> is supposed to be applied against.  Is it supposed to be applied on top
> of any of the other
> patches that Wei or I provided, or does it replace them all?
> 
> The main reason I ask is that as far as I can tell, your patch doesn't
> change the original
> mysterious condition for bundling a SACK, which was "if (asoc->a_rwnd >
> asoc->rwnd)".


Well, I took your patch verbatum for that code.  These two would apply on
top of that.

You can see the final code here:
	http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/vxy/lksctp-dev.git;a=shortlog;h=net-next

You can fetch from it like this:

# git fetch git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vxy/lksctp-dev.git \
refs/heads/net-next:refs/heads/<name that branch here>

That will dump the net-next branch into a local branch that you named (can be
any new name).

-vlad

> 
> --Doug
> 
> Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> Try to wrap up the discussion and all the patches that
>> happened in this tread, I'd like to send out what I've come
>> up with.  It's really a merge of all the points
>> we've discussed (minus the Nagel/small fragment discussion).
>>
>> What we try to do in the first patch is bundle the SACK
>> if we are going to send the DATA, regardless of if the SACK
>> will fit in the same packet or not.
>>
>> The second patch in the series, will size the DATA chunks
>> to account for possbile SACKs.  This will encourage bundling.
>>
>> The last piece of the puzzle is what to do with the small message
>> fragements.  Wei's approach doesn't work in the face of small
>> messages that the user decides to fragment as well (think, 400
>> byte message with a frag_size of 50).  I think we need to
>> take message size into account in this situation.
>>
>> Anyway, please feel free to comment on this approach.
>>
>> -vlad
>>
>>   
>