On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:

quoted text
> It's possible that new SACK blocks that should trigger new LOST
> markings arrive with new data (which previously made is_dupack
> false). In addition, I think this fixes a case where we get
> a cumulative ACK with enough SACK blocks to trigger the fast
> recovery (is_dupack would be false there too).
> 
> I'm not completely pleased with this solution because readability
> of the code is somewhat questionable as 'is_dupack' in SACK case
> is no longer about dupacks only but would mean something like
> 'lost_marker_work_todo' too... But because of Eifel stuff done
> in CA_Recovery, the FLAG_DATA_SACKED check cannot be placed to
> the if statement which seems attractive solution. Nevertheless,
> I didn't like adding another variable just for that either... :-)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ilpo J