Re: BUG in tcp_timer.c:tcp_retransmit_timer()
From: Nagendra Singh Tomar
Date: Tue Mar 30 2004 - 00:24:52 EST
Thats right. But what about the other cases of retransmission
failures for which we are having a negative return (-ENOMEM, -EAGAIN,
-EHOSTUNREACH etc). Even for these cases its not a good idea to
artificially increment tp->retransmits, lest in some extreme case we might
timeout a connection without a single packet going on the wire.
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 02:39:01 +0530 (IST)
> Nagendra Singh Tomar <nagendra_tomar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > While reading the code of tcp_retransmit_timer(), I came across something
> > which looks liks a BUG.
> It isn't, read below.
> > The following line
> > if (tcp_retransmit_skb(sk, skb_peek(&sk->write_queue)) > 0)
> > should correctly read as
> > if (tcp_retransmit_skb(sk, skb_peek(&sk->write_queue)) < 0)
> Nope, it really does want greater than zero. Less than zero
> means memory allocation error or something like that, but this is
> not what this code wants to check for. Read the comment inside
> this code block, it says it is the code path for "local congestion"
> and the device output path indicates congestion via positive valued
> error codes.
> These codes are the NET_XMIT_* and NET_RX_* macros defined in
> Thanks for the report though.
-- You have moved the mouse. Windows must be restarted for the
changes to take effect.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html