On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 11:59:59PM +0200, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Monday, July 02, 2012 15:22:58 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
/* sequence number is much newer, probably missed a lot of packets
*/ - if (seq_num_diff >= BATADV_TQ_LOCAL_WINDOW_SIZE &&
if (seq_num_diff >= size && seq_num_diff < BATADV_EXPECTED_SEQNO_RANGE) { batadv_dbg(BATADV_DBG_BATMAN, bat_priv, "We missed a lot of packets (%i) !\n", seq_num_diff - 1);
bitmap_zero(seq_bits, BATADV_TQ_LOCAL_WINDOW_SIZE);
bitmap_zero(seq_bits, size); if (set_mark)
batadv_set_bit(seq_bits, 0);
batadv_set_bit(seq_bits, 0, size); return 1; }
@@ -80,15 +81,15 @@ int batadv_bit_get_packet(void *priv, unsigned long *seq_bits, * packet should be dropped without calling this function if the
- seqno window is protected. */
if (seq_num_diff <= -BATADV_TQ_LOCAL_WINDOW_SIZE ||
if (seq_num_diff <= -size || seq_num_diff >= BATADV_EXPECTED_SEQNO_RANGE) {
Without addressing BATADV_EXPECTED_SEQNO_RANGE this change does not make sense for batadv_bit_get_packet(). Looking at the function as a whole I'd say it is very specific for the OGM handling. Thus, it will be difficult to use it for anything else or do you have a sample use case ?
Hi,
mh, no we don't. Drop this patch, I'd say we need a more sophisticated changed :)
Thank you,
Regards, Marek