Re: bug in 2.1.89 include/net/sock.h?
Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Sun, 22 Mar 1998 14:46:11 -0800 (PST)
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Your analysis is slightly flawed. ACK frames are a legitimate resource and
> need resource management like anything else. The wakeups are a valid issue,
> however I dont think we can simply forget about resource management of ack
> frames. Whether they should be charged to the socket or to some seperate
> ack resource is a good question. That resource itself has to be vaguely
> fairly shared.
How about a "per-route" thing? If the ack's aren't going out on a certain
route, there is no point in charging the overhead to the socket, because
all sockets with that route will have the same problem.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu