From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Pool Subject: Re: FIN_WAIT1 / TCP_CORK / 2.2 -- reproducible bug and test case Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:59:10 +1000 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20020930095909.GA8063@toey.sourcefrog.net> References: <20020926054721.GA6039@samba.org> <200209261309.RAA17837@sex.inr.ac.ru> <20020926.134608.31605412.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, ak@muc.de, netdev@oss.sgi.com, Alan.Cox@linux.org Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020926.134608.31605412.davem@redhat.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 26 Sep 2002, "David S. Miller" wrote: > From: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru > Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:09:11 +0400 (MSD) > > I do not understand why tcp_push_pending_frames() was not used > there... maybe, there was some reason not to use it. > > Dave, do you not remember this? So where does this leave us? Was the patch we came up with correct? It looks reasonable to me, but I don't know the stack well enough to be sure. I think it would be nice if it could be fixed in 2.2. Let me know if there's anything I can do by way of testing, etc. -- Martin