On Oct 8, 2006, at 2:49 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:

>>> "cwnd_inflation" sounds weird to me, given that what it does is
>>> ack handling for fast recovery.  otoh, "new_data_acked" inflates  
>>> cwnd.
>>> isn't it better to unify these two callbacks?
>>
>> Well, "inflation" is probably not the best word, but I don't see why
>> we want to unify them. What do you have in mind?
>
> because both of them are called sequentially in most cases
> (unless rcvacktoomuch, for which we can't do much anyway),
> it isn't clear for me what's the benefit to have two callbacks
> rather than one.

Right now, I don't see a way to have just one callback because of SACK.
We would have to call tcp_sack_newack() in every other  
tcp_xxxx_cwnd_inflation().
The point here is to introduce HSTCP and Westwood+ after these changes.

--
Rui Paulo