tcp: remove useless update for flag parameter in tcp_enter_frto_loss()
Subsystems (3)
PATCH 1/1 tcp: remove useless update for flag parameter in tcp_enter_frto_loss()
It seem that we forget remove below two lines after copying code :)
This update never impacts others.
Sorry for last mail with legal notices improperly, I used wrong mail.
Signed-off-by Li Yu <[email protected]>
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c +0 -0
@@ -2169,8 +2169,6 @@ static void tcp_enter_frto_loss(struct sock *sk,
int allowed_segments, int flag)
/* For some reason this R-bit might get cleared? */ if (TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->sacked & TCPCB_SACKED_RETRANS)
tp->retrans_out += tcp_skb_pcount(skb);
- /* ...enter this if branch just for the first segment */
- flag |= FLAG_DATA_ACKED;
} else {
if (TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->sacked & TCPCB_RETRANS)
tp->undo_marker = 0;
Quoted 15 lines · Li Yu
It seem that we forget remove below two lines after copying code :)
This update never impacts others.
Sorry for last mail with legal notices improperly, I used wrong mail.
Signed-off-by Li Yu <[email protected]>
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c +0
-0
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c static void tcp_enter_frto_loss(struct sock *sk, · line 2174
Quoted 6 lines
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c +0
-2@@ -2169,8 +2169,6 @@ static void tcp_enter_frto_loss(struct sock *sk, int allowed_segments, int flag) /* For some reason this R-bit might get cleared? */ if (TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->sacked & TCPCB_SACKED_RETRANS) tp->retrans_out += tcp_skb_pcount(skb); - /* ...enter this if branch just for the first segment */ - flag |= FLAG_DATA_ACKED;
The comment explicitly explains why the flag is marked for.
Quoted 7 lines
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c +0
-0} else { if (TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->sacked & TCPCB_RETRANS)tp->undo_marker = 0;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Neal Cardwell
maintainerQuoted 4 lines · Li Yu
It seem that we forget remove below two lines after copying code :)
This update never impacts others.
The 'flag' variable will be used in later iterations of the tcp_for_write_queue() loop. The comment seems to quite sensibly indicate that the FLAG_DATA_ACKED bit is being set to avoid entering that branch of the if statement in later segments in the loop:
2168 if ((tp->frto_counter == 1) && !(flag & FLAG_DATA_ACKED)) {
2169 /* For some reason this R-bit might get cleared? */
2170 if (TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->sacked & TCPCB_SACKED_RETRANS)
2171 tp->retrans_out += tcp_skb_pcount(skb);
2172 /* ...enter this if branch just for the
first segment */
2173 flag |= FLAG_DATA_ACKED;
2174 } else {
The structure of the logic seems intact from the original commit that added this:
neal
Quoted 20 lines · Neal Cardwell
Quoted 4 lines · Li Yu
It seem that we forget remove below two lines after copying code :)
This update never impacts others.
The 'flag' variable will be used in later iterations of the
tcp_for_write_queue()loop. The comment seems to quite sensibly indicate that theFLAG_DATA_ACKEDbit is being set to avoid entering that branch of the if statement in later segments in the loop:2168 if ((
tp->frto_counter== 1)&& !(flag&FLAG_DATA_ACKED)) {
2169 /* For some reason this R-bit might get cleared? */
2170 if (TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->sacked&TCPCB_SACKED_RETRANS)
2171tp->retrans_out+=tcp_skb_pcount(skb);
2172 /* ...enter this if branch just for the
first segment */
2173 flag |=FLAG_DATA_ACKED;
2174 } else {
Quoted 5 lines
The structure of the logic seems intact from the original commit that added this:
Sorry for spent time on this, it it account for F-RTO retransmitted segment here.
Yu
Quoted 2 lines
neal
Quoted 2 lines · Li Yu
Sorry for spent time on this, it it account for F-RTO retransmitted segment here.
I dont believe its waste of time having several eyes on this code.
Thanks