From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] [TCP]: Tighten tcp_sock's belt, drop left_out Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 01:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20070531.014241.28790645.davem@davemloft.net> References: <11801685621267-git-send-email-ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi> <11801685626-git-send-email-ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi> <11801685623173-git-send-email-ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:56223 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754343AbXEaIm1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2007 04:42:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <11801685623173-git-send-email-ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org =46rom: "Ilpo_J=E4rvinen" Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 11:35:56 +0300 > From: =3D?ISO-8859-1?q?Ilpo_J=3DE4rvinen?=3D >=20 > It is easily calculable when needed and user are not that many > after all. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Ilpo J=E4rvinen This looks good, but are you absolutely sure we never used a stale value of tp->left_out on purpose? I tried to audit this but there are so many cases :-) What I mean here is, was there a case where we updated sacked_out or lost_out, but then used left_out before it was updated, and we were doing this on purpose?