From b8ed601cefe7a4014b93560bd846caf44f25b1c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?utf8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:51:12 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] [TCP]: Bidir flow must not disregard SACK blocks for lost marking MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It's possible that new SACK blocks that should trigger new LOST markings arrive with new data (which previously made is_dupack false). In addition, I think this fixes a case where we get a cumulative ACK with enough SACK blocks to trigger the fast recovery (is_dupack would be false there too). I'm not completely pleased with this solution because readability of the code is somewhat questionable as 'is_dupack' in SACK case is no longer about dupacks only but would mean something like 'lost_marker_work_todo' too... But because of Eifel stuff done in CA_Recovery, the FLAG_DATA_SACKED check cannot be placed to the if statement which seems attractive solution. Nevertheless, I didn't like adding another variable just for that either... :-) Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- Reading git-format-patch failed