lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Patches: patch #9451, Fixes a bug in clearing unneeded...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
patch #9451: Fixes a bug in clearing unneeded TCP SACKs
Submitter: | Jakub Schmidtke <jschmidtke> | ||
Submitted: | Fri 08 Sep 2017 08:04:42 PM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | Done | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | goldsimon | Open/Closed: | Closed |
Planned Release: | None |
Jump to the original submission
Sat 09 Sep 2017 07:51:56 PM UTC, comment #8: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sat 09 Sep 2017 07:07:05 PM UTC, comment #7: You're right about the '7'. However, 747a0181 does not show anything for me either, so how can it be used for applying a patch? I don't get it.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 08 Sep 2017 09:24:01 PM UTC, comment #6: I mean 'git log 747a0181' and it works (despite not showing anything). 'git log 47a0181' fails. |
Jakub Schmidtke <jschmidtke> |
Fri 08 Sep 2017 09:22:28 PM UTC, comment #5: Something is wrong. There is no 47a0181, but those patches are referencing 747a0181. The first one is missing "7" at the beginning. I just cloned a fresh copy, and generated a patch against that, and it was exactly the same. I'm not sure what 747a0181 is, but I can do 'git log' in that fresh copy, and it works. |
Jakub Schmidtke <jschmidtke> |
Fri 08 Sep 2017 08:21:39 PM UTC, comment #4: OK, after cleaning my tree, the "manual" diff way works. Nevertheless, the patches seem to reference a git commit that doesn't exist in our repo. And that means the next change to the file in question could make it stop applying. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 08 Sep 2017 08:15:21 PM UTC, comment #3: I was able to apply the "updated" patch on top of 8c040093577da2a65cfa195349e25b8990f216af using 'git apply' with no issues |
Joel Cunningham <jcunningham> |
Fri 08 Sep 2017 08:10:40 PM UTC, comment #2: "revspec '47a0181' not found" for both files... |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 08 Sep 2017 08:08:15 PM UTC, comment #1: Updated with a fixed patch (wrong e-mail in the commit). |
Jakub Schmidtke <jschmidtke> |
Fri 08 Sep 2017 08:04:42 PM UTC, original submission:
I have noticed, that sometimes ACK packets include SACKs for data that is before the ACK in the same packet (meaning it was SACKing data already delivered in-order).
|
Jakub Schmidtke <jschmidtke> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 5 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017-09-09 | goldsimon | Status | None | Done | |
Assigned to | None | goldsimon | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2017-09-08 | jschmidtke | Attached File | - | Added 0001-Fixed-removing-unneeded-TCP-SACKs_updated.patch, #41766 | |
2017-09-08 | jschmidtke | Attached File | - | Added 0001-Fixed-removing-unneeded-TCP-SACKs.patch, #41765 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-d3ae.
Corresponding source code
Pushed, thanks for the patch!