Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 10:26:14 -0700 From: "Justin C. Walker" <justin@apple.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sub-optimal tcp_ouput() performance in the face of ENOBUFS Message-ID: <200007291725.KAA11439@scv1.apple.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, July 28, 2000, at 07:58 PM, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Archie Cobbs wrote: > > > I understand the scenario described by the commit message. What > > I don't understand about this commit is this: suppose the exact > > same scenario happens, except that instead of ip_output() returning > > ENOBUFS, it returns zero, BUT the packet is dropped anyway because > > of (say) an Ethernet collision. > > > > Then why wouldn't you have the same thing happen, i.e., no retransmit > > timer running and you're stuck in LAST_ACK forever? No timer is being > > set in the subsequent code at the end of tcp_output().. > > Hm, I was going to wager that some calling procedure was acting > differently depending on the return value of tcp_output, but since ENOBUFS > returns 0, and the error isn't checked anyway. Forgive my early-morning density, but I've read this sentence several times, and it just doesn't look right. Could you try again? I know there's value in it, but it isn't making it through. Regards, Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007291725.KAA11439>