From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: listen(2) backlog changes in or around Linux 3.1?
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 00:50:17 +0200
Message-ID: <1351205417.6537.272.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
References: <CAJgzZorigejCuFweNrvmkEJts3Um7exh1fYTH=4KrEcB=v=2SA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <507C4401.7050500@oracle.com>
	 <CAJgzZoqhw6HJxa6uRbekLMaVTDVOo92YDtzqHnZoRiQ8tq6G2g@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAJgzZoq9+KZpQ1tVQJUK++VVk4JfY9u8timaJ5q6wSYoF+_tog@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5080279F.80008@oracle.com> <5080340F.3050207@oracle.com>
	 <CAJgzZooJM7aj=K-idvdbwUOOmtDM6u-=gsVOs2OFZjiZwQP0zw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAGK4HS-tOE1uZR2PE+_DShEb3y5ZAn=dtECY1AmmyO2AmTVzTA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1350629413.2293.157.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <1350634013.2293.262.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <CAGK4HS_9mLzL9ESm=n5hvO0cw1hkHFMCSmBiYTBnqEMqQOvPvQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1350642562.2293.411.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210221251520.1684@cleese>
	 <1350936519.8609.1239.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <CAGK4HS9N9b64pKobWE=9wM-ZqNL-uJiGoAWNkqu=F=-NgHM=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: enh <enh@google.com>,
	Venkat Venkatsubra <venkat.x.venkatsubra@oracle.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Vijay Subramanian <subramanian.vijay@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:57407 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750894Ab2JYWuV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:50:21 -0400
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hq12so29548wib.1
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGK4HS9N9b64pKobWE=9wM-ZqNL-uJiGoAWNkqu=F=-NgHM=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 15:11 -0700, Vijay Subramanian wrote:

> >
> > All these facilities sound very complex and not really usable by clients
> > (ie users not willing to wait more than few seconds anyway)
> >
> 
> Fair enough. We can drop this if it is not worth the trouble or if I
> have missed any other scenario.
> 

Sorry my comment was not related to your patch, but existing logic.

It seems there is no value resending SYNACK, as we received the client
ACK.

Please send an official patch ?