[ipxe-devel] About recent TCP stack improvements

[Guo-Fu Tseng]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:44:38 +0100, Michael Brown wrote
> On Friday 23 Jul 2010 06:59:56 Guo-Fu Tseng wrote:
> > BTW, do you think it's reasonable to do something like:
> > "[tcp] Cleanup TCP closing actions" patch which it sumbitted
> > on gpxe-devel list?[2]
> > 
> > I think it might be useful for following reasons:
> >   1. We don't have to think of what would tcp_close() do if we call it
> > somewhere. The behavior of calling tcp_close() would be always the same.
> >   2. Reduced some duplicate code.
> >   3. We don't have to separate tcp_close() from tcp_rx_fin(). And have the
> >  same behavior. Seems a little more neat to me.
> > 
> > Above results are accomplished by:
> >   1. Separate terminate action.
> >   2. Separate terminate action.
> >   3. Separate nullify xfer interface.
> >      (Which is part of "[tcp] Receive and Close flow adjustment"[1])
> > 
> > [1]:
> > http://git.etherboot.org/?p=people/cooldavid/gpxe.git;a=commitdiff;h=8fc73d
> > 18c8528cbcc1b1c3849b51d3ee3682c937 [2]:
> > http://git.etherboot.org/?p=people/cooldavid/gpxe.git;a=commitdiff;h=660e96
> > 200f67c981e7397eb05fbb4e91ed253f50
> 
> Simplifying the closing actions would be good, though I'm not 
> immediately clear on what the patch would look like.  How about 
> putting together a patch for
> 
>   [tcp] Deliver data only after updating TCP state
> 
> i.e. the "struct list_head received ..." code I described, which 
> *doesn't* require tcp_xfer_shutdown() to be split out of tcp_close(),
>  and then adding the support for active/passive close and any cleanup 
> of closing actions on top of that?  (It's up to you, but that's how I 
> would approach it.)
> 
> Michael
Sure, I can do this. :)
I would like this approach too!
Seems I misunderstood the "put together *A* patch". :p

Guo-Fu Tseng