Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

avoid allocating when detecting lost packets #2898

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 5, 2020

Conversation

marten-seemann
Copy link
Member

Admittedly, avoiding the allocation for detectAndRemoveAckedPackets would be more important, but it's also more difficult, so let's start with the low hanging fruits.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 22, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #2898 (85fd5a2) into master (69158cf) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 58.33%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2898      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.77%   85.80%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         133      133              
  Lines        9187     9174      -13     
==========================================
- Hits         7880     7871       -9     
+ Misses        959      955       -4     
  Partials      348      348              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
internal/flowcontrol/base_flow_controller.go 100.00% <ø> (ø)
internal/ackhandler/sent_packet_handler.go 73.56% <45.95%> (+0.51%) ⬆️
internal/flowcontrol/connection_flow_controller.go 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
internal/flowcontrol/stream_flow_controller.go 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ed1956f...85fd5a2. Read the comment docs.

@marten-seemann marten-seemann merged commit 1beb6f9 into master Dec 5, 2020
@marten-seemann marten-seemann deleted the dont-allocate-for-lost-packets branch December 5, 2020 16:16
@aschmahmann aschmahmann mentioned this pull request May 14, 2021
71 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants