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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox