RFC3758 Section 3.3.1.  Sending Forward-TSN-Supported param in INIT

   Note that if the endpoint chooses NOT to include the parameter, then
   at no time during the life of the association can it send or process
   a FORWARD TSN.

If peer does not support PR-SCTP capable, don't send FORWARD-TSN chunk
to peer.

Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

The functions time_before or time_after are more robust
for comparing jiffies against other values.

Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Commit 62aeaff5ccd96462b7077046357a6d7886175a57
(sctp: Start T3-RTX timer when fast retransmitting lowest TSN)
introduced a regression where it was possible to forcibly
restart the sctp retransmit timer at the transmission of any
new chunk.  This resulted in much longer timeout times and
sometimes hung sctp connections.

Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

sctp_chunks should be put on a diet.  This is some of the low hanging
fruit that we can strip out.  Changes all the __s8/__u8 flags to
bitfields.  Saves 12 bytes per chunk.

Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>

Chunks placed on the retransmit list are marked as inelegible
for fast retrasnmission.   Since missing indications determine
when fast reransmission is done, there is not point in calling
sctp_mark_missing() on the retransmit list since those chunks
will not be marked.

Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>

There is a possibility of walking the transport list twice during
SACK processing when doing SFR-CACC algorithm.  We can restructure
the code to only do this once.

Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>

Frist small step in optimizing SACK processing.   Do not call
sctp_mark_missing() when there are no gaps reported and thus
not missing chunks.

Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>

sctp_outq_flush() can now become static.

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

RFC 4960, Section 11.4. Protection of Non-SCTP-Capable Hosts

When an SCTP stack receives a packet containing multiple control or
DATA chunks and the processing of the packet requires the sending of
multiple chunks in response, the sender of the response chunk(s) MUST
NOT send more than one packet.  If bundling is supported, multiple
response chunks that fit into a single packet MAY be bundled together
into one single response packet.  If bundling is not supported, then
the sender MUST NOT send more than one response chunk and MUST
discard all other responses.  Note that this rule does NOT apply to a
SACK chunk, since a SACK chunk is, in itself, a response to DATA and
a SACK does not require a response of more DATA.

We implement this by not servicing our outqueue until we reach the end
of the packet.  This enables maximum bundling.  We also identify
'response' chunks and make sure that we only send 1 packet when sending
such chunks.

Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

When fast retransmit is triggered by a sack, we should flush the queue
only once so that only 1 retransmit happens.  Also, since we could
potentially have non-fast-rtx chunks on the retransmit queue, we need
make sure any chunks eligable for fast retransmit are sent first
during fast retransmission.

Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
Tested-by: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>