|
From: William J. M. <wm...@es...> - 2004-04-21 21:05:34
|
I'll check them in. I wanted something more than my own testing before I did. Agreed on the latency changes. I also think a tuning setting on a channel for minimum fragment size might be easily implemented. That would give you what you were looking for a while ago of setting that to >4k whih means your frames would always g whole. Regards, -bill On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 04:36:46PM -0400, David C Niemi wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, William J. Mills wrote: > > I am rpretty sure the answe is no. Go for it! > > > > How did the silly window changes work out? > > They worked, and I'd like to see some form of them go into the main tree. > The latency changes need to be generalized. I'd like to put together a > patch with all my changes for your review -- probably next week. > > DCN > > ------------------------------------------------------- > -- David C. Niemi Adeptech Systems, Inc. -- > -- Reston, Virginia, USA http://www.adeptech.com/ -- > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials > Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of > GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system > administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Beepcore-c-users mailing list > Bee...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/beepcore-c-users |