From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: avoid tx starvation by SYNACK packets Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 06:48:57 +0200 Message-ID: <1338526137.2760.1425.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1338501397.2760.1395.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20120531.190345.1754322784813248328.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hans.schillstrom@ericsson.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, ncardwell@google.com, therbert@google.com, brouer@redhat.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]:43437 "EHLO mail-wi0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755121Ab2FAEtD (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:49:03 -0400 Received: by wibhn6 with SMTP id hn6so243472wib.1 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 21:49:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120531.190345.1754322784813248328.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 19:03 -0400, David Miller wrote: > Is the net-next tree open yet? David Hans asked me to send a patch for testing, I sent it, and made clear it was not a fix for current net tree. RFC is like 'I throw a patch, I am not even 50% confident of it, please comment and fix my bugs'. Most busy people just ignore it. In this case, I know it really fixes a problem, but since its a day-0 one, its not meant for net tree (linux-3.5) I don't know what's wrong with ignoring patches and consider them later when net-next is open and various Acked-by or Tested-by signatures were added, as done by other maintainers. Just make clear that if a patch is not anymore listed on http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/ , the author is responsible for resending it with all added signatures ? We need to exchange ideas (aka patches), even in the merge window, or if the subtree maintainer is busy doing its own job. Thanks