Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 3/3] net: TCP thin dupack

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:19:31 -0500

Last year, I'm pretty sure I was on record as thinking this is *not* a
good idea.  But at least it now requires a sysctl to turn on, and
should default to off.

Also that naming was a bit dicey.  Now the names are more descriptive,
but the "force" is a bit overkill.

How about:
   NET_TCP_FORCE_THIN_LINEAR_DUPACK -> NET_TCP_THIN_LINEAR_DUPACK
   tcp_force_thin_dupack            -> tcp_thin_linear_dupack
   sysctl_tcp_force_thin_dupack     -> sysctl_tcp_thin_linear_dupack

Andreas Petlund wrote:
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> index 28e0296..c5a73ab 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> @@ -89,6 +89,8 @@ int sysctl_tcp_frto __read_mostly = 2;
>  int sysctl_tcp_frto_response __read_mostly;
>  int sysctl_tcp_nometrics_save __read_mostly;
>  
> +int sysctl_tcp_force_thin_dupack __read_mostly;
> +
>  int sysctl_tcp_moderate_rcvbuf __read_mostly = 1;

Where is the sysctl initialized?