On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, David S. Miller wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:54:14 +0530 (IST) > Nagendra Singh Tomar <nagendra_tomar@adaptec.com> wrote: > > > Thats right. But what about the other cases of retransmission > > failures for which we are having a negative return (-ENOMEM, -EAGAIN, > > -EHOSTUNREACH etc). Even for these cases its not a good idea to > > artificially increment tp->retransmits, lest in some extreme case we might > > timeout a connection without a single packet going on the wire. > > That's just like the packet getting dropped at the next hop, > and not the case this branch of code intends to deal with. > I understand your point, but we should try our best to retransmit uptill the "max retransmission count". Packets can be dropped at any hop, but thats excatly why TCP doess a large number of retransmissions, before giving up. Whats wrong in having the check as if (tcp_retransmit_skb(sk, skb_peek(&sk->write_queue)) != 0) so that we take care of both the cases. Does it have any bad effects ? Thanx, tomar -- You have moved the mouse. Windows must be restarted for the changes to take effect. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
