Would like to change the commit text to:
Add hooks to parse and format the MP_CAPABLE option.
This option is handled according to MPTCP version 0 (RFC6824).
MPTCP version 1 MP_CAPABLE (RFC6824bis/RFC8684) will be added
later in coordination with related code changes.
Add routines to parse and format the MP_CAPABLE option.
These options are handled according to MPTCPv0 (RFC6824).
RFC6824bis/RFC8684 MPTCPv1 MP_CAPABLE is added later in coordination
with related code changes.
Fix minor typos.
Signed-off-by: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com>
.topmsg | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.topmsg b/.topmsg
index 75ae84b862ce..5a55ac729038 100644
@@ -6,13 +6,13 @@ fields. MPTCP fields are parsed from the TCP option header and placed in
an skb extension, allowing the upper MPTCP layer to access MPTCP
options after the skb has gone through the TCP stack.
-The subflow implements it's own data_ready() ops, which ensures that
-the pending data is in sequence - according to MPTCP seq number -
-dropping out-of-seq skbs. The DATA_READY bit flag is set if this
-is the case. This allows the MPTCP socket layer to determine if more
-data is available without having to consult the individual subflows.
+The subflow implements its own data_ready() ops, which ensures that the
+pending data is in sequence - according to MPTCP seq number - dropping
+out-of-seq skbs. The DATA_READY bit flag is set if this is the case.
+This allows the MPTCP socket layer to determine if more data is
+available without having to consult the individual subflows.
-It additionally validates the current mapping and propagate EoF events
+It additionally validates the current mapping and propagates EoF events
to the connection socket.
Co-developed-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni(a)redhat.com>
On a pad, I listed the different things to do before sending the new
version to netdev:
- 1223968: mptcp: Store 32 and 64-bit ACKs separately
→ Needs Review
- 1224646: mptcp: Optimize DSS fields in mptcp_options_received
→ Changes Requested, or not? (not clear for me)
- a few patches to be applied
→ I will do that: mainly changing commit messages, comments, etc.
- subflow.c:undefined reference to `__crypto_memneq'
→ see another email thread from Florian: what do we need to do?
Did I miss something? Feel free to help on the above items ;-)
Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium