From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] sctp: Do not account for sizeof(struct sk_buff) in estimated rwnd Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:59:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20111220.135932.1341471164986426570.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20111220093910.GB21801@canuck.infradead.org> <4EF0CD69.9000602@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: weiyj.lk@gmail.com, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: vladislav.yasevich@hp.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:42165 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751958Ab1LTS7t (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:59:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4EF0CD69.9000602@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Vlad Yasevich Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:01:13 -0500 > > > On 12/20/2011 04:39 AM, Thomas Graf wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 01:00:48PM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: >>> I saw you discussed this with Vlad in old mail: >>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sctp/msg01365.html >>> >>> You said you will update patch to include a per packet overhead, >>> but it does not include in this patch, what's wrong with in? >> >> It's not possible because upon retransmission of a chunk we need >> to readd the overhead to the rwnd. There is no longer a reference >> to a packet so we can't know how much to add. This explanation is >> also in the original mail thread. >> > > > Right. The original patches were done to work around the problem of > leftover rwnd when socket buffer is exhausted and they didn't really > address the problem sufficiently. It was still possible to reach that > condition. Some subsequent patches added support to address this > issue > a different way. As a result, I think this revert is just fine. > > Acked-by: Vlad Yasevich Applied, thanks everyone.