Didnt mean option negotiation, the SACK permitted
works fine
> SACK implies DSACK will cause no harm. An
> pre-DSACK implementation of SACK should
> effectively treat the DSACKs as nops, ie.
> they are harmless.
You would hope ;), but there is some bug in some Windoze I suspect
that gets confused by a duplicate SACK in some situation. I havent
been able to reproduce this on my hw, but have seen a strange trace
a while ago that was pretty similar.
thanks,
Nivedita
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/