User Details
- User Since
- Jan 7 2016, 3:15 PM (269 w, 13 h)
Tue, Mar 2
I figure that a sweep is better than peicemeal changes to whitespace. A lot of these are extra spaces after braces.
Sat, Feb 27
Fri, Feb 12
Sep 19 2020
Sep 1 2020
for me it was six and two threes, updated to refer to section 22.
Refer to all of section 22
Aug 28 2020
- Address review comments
Updated diff coming I changed the netstat line to "no or incomplete upper layer header in first fragment" which did not wrap until there were 10 figures of packets.
Aug 21 2020
Aug 18 2020
Please make sure to check for failure after memory allocation. You need to add the paths to report these errors and the socket errors that kp@ pointed out too.
Other than these there are some minor nits, reading style will probably flag these up.
Jul 22 2020
Jul 13 2020
Jul 11 2020
Jul 2 2020
Jun 23 2020
Jun 21 2020
Jun 19 2020
Jun 18 2020
Is this still relevant to your porting work? If I get an ack I will add this to my list to look at.
May 25 2020
Mar 15 2020
Dec 14 2019
Nov 30 2019
When kern.hz is 100 timer resolution below 10ms is disgarded. You can see clearly in
the RTT measurement, on a path with 15ms delay TCP stats will report an rtt of 20ms.
It also seems to be the case that all sub 10ms delay paths report a minimum delay of
10ms. This does not present if I boot with kern.hz set to 1000.
I get inconsistent results for TXPB, you can see this with the test script here:
https://gist.github.com/adventureloop/fb68d805696aeaf03c227f08cbe87947
Nov 16 2019
updated
Nov 4 2019
Oct 8 2019
Oct 6 2019
- Use named union and struct in header definition
Sep 28 2019
Fix struct so that will build, last rev I seem to have updated the review from
the wrong tree.
Sep 20 2019
Arcanist tricked me and created this instead of updating an existing review
Remove extra white space around union
Aug 18 2019
Aug 17 2019
Aug 14 2019
Aug 10 2019
Aug 8 2019
Remove accidentally added file
- Only reduce staging size on arm
Aug 7 2019
Extend the sequence number field to include a reserved byte in the long header.
Add comment to explain the seq field is sized to hold either the short or the long sequence number
Aug 5 2019
Aug 4 2019
All the tests seem to work on r350568
Jul 28 2019
Jul 27 2019
Jul 21 2019
Jul 20 2019
Jul 16 2019
Jul 10 2019
I have been digging and I think I have all the background for why this was
removed in r87145.
Jul 4 2019
Jul 3 2019
Jun 19 2019
May 26 2019
May 23 2019
Respond to review comments
May 9 2019
Address review comments
May 8 2019
Apr 23 2019
Apr 21 2019
I think we can just use zero for the label if enough entropy is not available. A flow label of zero indicates no flow label "treatment" in the network. On my test machine most early packets are already have a flow label of zero. From RFC 6437
Apr 19 2019
Looks good to me
I am okay with Jonathan's suggested plan.
Apr 18 2019
Diff against correct tree