From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 22 19:38:13 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051D216A400 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:38:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from outN.internet-mail-service.net (outN.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.237]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F3313C4BD for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:38:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from shell.idiom.com (HELO idiom.com) (216.240.47.20) by out.internet-mail-service.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:17:52 -0800 Received: from [10.251.23.190] (nat.ironport.com [63.251.108.100]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32681125B9C; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:38:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <45B512A0.5030502@elischer.org> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:38:08 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Macintosh/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andre Oppermann References: <200701221546.l0MFk27m081898@wattres.watt.com> <45B50C5B.2080600@elischer.org> <45B50D87.2050208@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <45B50D87.2050208@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Steve Watt , Uwe Doering , net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interesting TCP issue X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:38:13 -0000 Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netinet/tcp_input.c.diff?r1=1.290&r2=1.291 >>> >>> } >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netinet/tcp_syncache.c.diff?r1=1.84&r2=1.85 >>> >>> } >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netinet/tcp_var.h.diff?r1=1.127&r2=1.128 >>> >>> } } How about the modifications in 'tcp_input.c'? Are they relevant >>> to the } problem this thread is about? If so, assessing the >>> correctness of an } MFC might prove to be a little harder. >> >> >> >> That's why I asked Andre to look at it but he's not responding.. > > He's about to re-appear @freebsd. > great.. The TCP code is a bit like a house of cards.. Unless one is up-to-date and has it all 'loaded' into one's mental cache, it is all to easy to screw up function A by fixing code related to function B. As I'm not 'loaded' I'm loathe to just MFC the one patch without being sure what the other two are.. BTW Andre you might MFC to back to 5 and 4 too if you could.. Julian