-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Increment missing indications from SACK #353
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #353 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 81.43% 81.61% +0.17%
==========================================
Files 51 51
Lines 4337 4341 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 3532 3543 +11
+ Misses 660 655 -5
+ Partials 145 143 -2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚨 Try these New Features:
|
2381c39
to
775266c
Compare
@@ -1855,7 +1858,7 @@ func (a *Association) handleSack(d *chunkSelectiveAck) error { | |||
a.setRWND(d.advertisedReceiverWindowCredit - bytesOutstanding) | |||
} | |||
|
|||
err = a.processFastRetransmission(d.cumulativeTSNAck, htna, cumTSNAckPointAdvanced) | |||
err = a.processFastRetransmission(d.cumulativeTSNAck, d.gapAckBlocks, htna, cumTSNAckPointAdvanced) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't know the protocol, but just reading this, can this just pass in the end
of the last entry? Any reason for passing in the slice?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Guess, you will have to do the check for length here rather than inside the function. Maybe, six of one and half-a-dozen of other case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No difference but I prefer to put the code and comment together to understand all TSNs reported missing from the SACK (gapAckBlocks)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you @cnderrauber
775266c
to
5f604a4
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, but I do not know the protocol to comment on nuances of this. Would be good to get another pair of 👀 on this.
Mind adding a test @cnderrauber! It’s been a while going to re-read this section |
Increment missing indication for reported missing chunks instead of all inflight chunks.
f1eab69
to
d3e02e2
Compare
According to the RFC4960 , the missing indications should be incremented for missing chunks in the SACK.