On 1/6/07, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would like to retract the change in the interface of update_li which we discussed recently.
The reason is that the caller supplies `loss' parameters (a loss sequence number and a loss
CCVal); the fact that in the current implementation this coincides with the fields
hccrx->ccid3hcrx_seqno_nonloss and
hcrx->ccid3hcrx_ccval_nonloss
in ccid3_hc_rx_detect_loss is more of a coincidence.
I disagree with you on this. It's not a coincidence at all. I planned
the code that way. It "happens" to have the right values because I put
them there.
I have been going over this code several
times and come to the conclusion that not changing the interface of update_li is the cleanest
way. I have uploaded this to the online directory, below are the differences to Ian's original.
I disagree with this. However I can see some confusion because we are
equating nonloss and loss variables and the variables are named badly
in the loss interval code. What I've done is stuck with my original
patch but changed the variable names seq_loss and win_loss to
seq_nonloss and win_nonloss respectively.
I've posted the new version online. Can you now use this one please?
Ian
--
Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4
Blog: http://imcdnzl.blogspot.com
WAND Network Research Group
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
