From owner-freebsd-net Tue Mar 26 12:38:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from hairball.treehouse.napa.ca.us (dsl-64-128-194-169.telocity.com [64.128.194.169]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E1A37B405 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:38:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by hairball.treehouse.napa.ca.us (8.11.6/8.11.5) id g2QKcbl55210 for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:38:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mailnull) Received: (from news@localhost) by hairball.treehouse.napa.ca.us (8.11.6/8.11.5) id g2QKcah55196 for treehouse-mail-freebsd-net@hairball.treehouse.napa.ca.us; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:38:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from news) From: "G. Paul Ziemba" To: treehouse-mail-freebsd-net@treehouse.napa.ca.us Subject: should tcp_reass() update tcps_rcvpartduppack, tcps_rcvpartdupbyte? Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:38:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-id: Reply-To: paul@w6yx.stanford.edu Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This is just a nit, but it seems to me that although the code in tcp_reass() counts completely overlapping packets via the statistics tcps_rcvduppack and tcps_rcvdupbyte, it does NOT count partially overlapping packets as it should with tcps_rcvpartduppack and tcps_rcvpartdupbyte. I'm thinking that the following change ought to do the right thing, but I'd like to know if anyone disagrees: --- tcp_input.c Sat Dec 15 03:23:56 2001 +++ tcp_input.c+ Tue Mar 26 11:04:35 2002 @@ -223,6 +223,9 @@ * completes. */ goto present; /* ??? */ + } else { + tcpstat.tcps_rcvpartduppack++; + tcpstat.tcps_rcvpartdupbyte += *tlenp; } m_adj(m, i); *tlenp -= i; -- G. Paul Ziemba paul@w6yx.stanford.edu FreeBSD unix: 12:36PM up 1 day, 2:44, 9 users, load averages: 0.04, 0.04, 0.01 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message