From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] tcp: introduce tcp_tw_interval to specifiy the time of TIME-WAIT Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:44:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20120928.024416.1606551804314602583.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1348735261-29225-1-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> <20120927.130529.620560818048014548.davem@davemloft.net> <1348814399.7264.44.camel@cr0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, kaber@trash.net, edumazet@google.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com To: amwang@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:34711 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751950Ab2I1GoR (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:44:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1348814399.7264.44.camel@cr0> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Cong Wang Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:39:59 +0800 > On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 13:05 -0400, David Miller wrote: >> >> Without appropriate confirmation that an early time-wait reuse is >> valid, decreasing this interval can only be dangerous. > > Yeah, would a proper documentation cure this? Something like we did for > other tuning: > > "It should not be changed without advice/request of technical experts." No, we're not adding this facility.