2 messages, 2 authors, 2012-11-24 · open the first message on its own page
From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Date: 2012-11-23 19:58:26
Jesper Dangaard Brouer [off-list ref] wrote:
+// TODO: Idea what about also looking at flag INET_FRAG_FIRST_IN
+// just as safe-guard against frags with a dropped "head" packet
+ if (!force && q->creation_ts == (u32) jiffies) {I think we should not rely on head fragment arriving first.
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hidden>
Date: 2012-11-24 11:39:09
On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 20:58 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
Jesper Dangaard Brouer [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
+// TODO: Idea what about also looking at flag INET_FRAG_FIRST_IN +// just as safe-guard against frags with a dropped "head" packet + if (!force && q->creation_ts == (u32) jiffies) {I think we should not rely on head fragment arriving first.
Good point. Lets keep the current approach. -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer