Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] net: TCP thin linear timeouts

[Andreas Petlund]

On 12. feb. 2010 12:19, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Last year, I'm pretty sure I was on record as thinking this is only a
> marginally good idea, that would be better at the application layer.
> 
> Also that naming was a bit dicey.  Now the names are more descriptive,
> but the "force" is a bit overkill.
> 
> How about?
>   NET_TCP_FORCE_THIN_LINEAR_TIMEOUTS    -> NET_TCP_THIN_LINEAR_TIMEOUTS
>   TCP_THIN_LT                           -> TCP_THIN_LINEAR_TIMEOUTS
>   TCP_THIN_LT_RETRIES                   -> TCP_THIN_LINEAR_RETRIES
>   tcp_force_thin_linear_timeouts        -> tcp_thin_linear_timeouts
>   sysctl_tcp_force_thin_linear_timeouts -> sysctl_tcp_thin_linear_timeouts
>   tp->thin_lt                           -> tp->thin_lto
> 
> The latter mostly traditional "to" for "timeout", as used most everywhere.
> 

I agree that the _force_-part should be taken out for both patches, and 
renaming the lt to lto also makes sense. I'll fix it in the next iteration.

> Just for efficiency, I'd reorder this
>   +    if (sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED &&
>   +        (tp->thin_lt || sysctl_tcp_force_thin_linear_timeouts) &&
>   +        tcp_stream_is_thin(sk) &&
>   +        icsk->icsk_retransmits <= TCP_THIN_LT_RETRIES) {

Thank you for this suggestion. I'll reorder in the next iteration.

Best regards,
Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/