--gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:20:39PM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
[snip]
> That's still wrong.  rcv_sack_num should only be cleared when there
> are no out-of-order packets (in other words, the reassmebly queue
> is empty).
>=20
> I think rcv_sack_num should be renamed timeq_count and be maintained by
> tcp_reass.  It is simply the number of ipqe elements in the timeq.  I
> don't see a reason for rcv_sack_block to exist either.  That information
> is in the first three elements of timeq (and is why timeq exists).

Not always.  When sending D-SACK, the first SACK block will not be in
the reasseblly queue.

--=20
Kentaro A. Kurahone
SIGUSR1 Research and Development

--gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)
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=5liV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy--