3:58 p.m.
Hi,
At the last meeting, we agreed on this planning for the RFCv3 for netdev:
- Wait for Florian comment about that → *Done*
- Matth does the rebase → *Done*
- We let half to one day for the review → *In progress*
- Paolo sends coffee to Mat → *In preparation*
- Mat sends that to Netdev as a non RFC → *Waiting*
- (maybe: Mat, may you already send a new draft for the
cover-letter for this first batch?)
I guess for the last one, if Mat, you have the opportunity to start it,
feel free to already share it.
Regarding the cover-letter, here is what we said after the meeting:
In the cover-letter, we would say that we would like to know:
- if there are any objections on the changes made in the TCP core.
- the goal is to send this patch-set as a non RFC one when we are
ready with our initial patch-set that we called "part 2".
Ideally, if everything goes well, we could have:
- Today in the US and also tomorrow in Europe, we review the new tree
- We can also review the cover-letter if available
- If no objections and everything read, we tag the new version tomorrow
- Once it is tagged and cover-letter ready, we send the 11th first
patches of the new series.
Feel free to react if you need more time or if something needs to be
changed.
WDYT?
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
4:16 p.m.
On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 17:58 +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
At the last meeting, we agreed on this planning for the RFCv3 for
netdev:
[...]
- Paolo sends coffee to Mat → *In preparation*
(
) (
___...(-------)-....___
.-"" ) ( ""-.
.-'``'|-._ ) _.-|
/ .--.| `""---...........---""` |
/ / | |
| | | |
\ \ | |
`\ `\ | |
`\ `| |
_/ /\ /
(__/ \ /
_..---""` \ /`""---.._
.-' \ / '-.
: `-.__ __.-' :
: ) ""---...---"" ( :
'._ `"--...___...--"` _.'
jgs \""--..__ __..--""/
'._ """----.....______.....----"""
_.'
`""--..,,_____ _____,,..--""`
`"""----"""`
[sent]
Sorry, I could not resist ;)
/P
11:28 p.m.
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
- (maybe: Mat, may you already send a new draft for the
cover-letter for this first batch?)
I guess for the last one, if Mat, you have the opportunity to start it, feel
free to already share it.
Regarding the cover-letter, here is what we said after the meeting:
> In the cover-letter, we would say that we would like to know:
> - if there are any objections on the changes made in the TCP core.
> - the goal is to send this patch-set as a non RFC one when we are
> ready with our initial patch-set that we called "part 2".
Here's my proposed v3 cover letter.
Did I correctly understand the end of the quoted message above regarding a
non-RFC posting when part 2 is ready?
"""
Subject: [RFC PATCH v3 00/xx] Multipath TCP prerequisites
The MPTCP upstreaming community has prepared a net-next RFCv3 patch
set for review. The scope of this patch set is limited to prerequisite
TCP core changes so we can get focused feedback in these areas.
In this patch set we introduce some MPTCP definitions, additional ULP
and skb extension features, TCP option space checking, and a few
exported symbols.
Our intent is to send this as a non-RFC series when the next phase of
changes are ready to post. That second patch set will add CONFIG_MPTCP
in Kconfig, introduce the MPTCP socket type, implement the protocol,
and add self tests.
Clone/fetch:
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next.git (tag: netdev-rfcv3)
Browse:
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/tree/netdev-rfcv3
Thank you for your review. You can find us at mptcp(a)lists.01.org and
https://is.gd/mptcp_upstream
"""
--
Mat Martineau
Intel
9:22 a.m.
Hi Mat,
On 08/10/2019 01:28, Mat Martineau wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> - (maybe: Mat, may you already send a new draft for the
> cover-letter for this first batch?)
>
> I guess for the last one, if Mat, you have the opportunity to start
> it, feel free to already share it.
>
> Regarding the cover-letter, here is what we said after the meeting:
>
>> In the cover-letter, we would say that we would like to know:
>> - if there are any objections on the changes made in the TCP core.
>> - the goal is to send this patch-set as a non RFC one when we are
>> ready with our initial patch-set that we called "part 2".
>
Here's my proposed v3 cover letter.
Thank you for the new draft!
Did I correctly understand the end of the quoted message above
regarding
a non-RFC posting when part 2 is ready?
Yes, I think you do, the message is perfect for me!
I just have two questions below:
"""
Subject: [RFC PATCH v3 00/xx] Multipath TCP prerequisites
The MPTCP upstreaming community has prepared a net-next RFCv3 patch
set for review. The scope of this patch set is limited to prerequisite
TCP core changes so we can get focused feedback in these areas.
In this patch set we introduce some MPTCP definitions, additional ULP
and skb extension features, TCP option space checking, and a few
exported symbols.
Our intent is to send this as a non-RFC series when the next phase of
changes are ready to post. That second patch set will add CONFIG_MPTCP
in Kconfig, introduce the MPTCP socket type, implement the protocol,
(maybe: implement an initial set of the protocol? Or setup the base?)
and add self tests.
Clone/fetch:
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next.git (tag: netdev-rfcv3)
A detail but where should we do the tag? At the end of the patches we
are going to send or at the end of the series? (or both)
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
5:06 p.m.
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
Hi Mat,
On 08/10/2019 01:28, Mat Martineau wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
>> - (maybe: Mat, may you already send a new draft for the
>> cover-letter for this first batch?)
>>
>> I guess for the last one, if Mat, you have the opportunity to start it,
>> feel free to already share it.
>>
>> Regarding the cover-letter, here is what we said after the meeting:
>>
>>> In the cover-letter, we would say that we would like to know:
>>> - if there are any objections on the changes made in the TCP core.
>>> - the goal is to send this patch-set as a non RFC one when we are
>>> ready with our initial patch-set that we called "part 2".
>>
>
> Here's my proposed v3 cover letter.
Thank you for the new draft!
> Did I correctly understand the end of the quoted message above regarding a
> non-RFC posting when part 2 is ready?
Yes, I think you do, the message is perfect for me!
I just have two questions below:
> """
> Subject: [RFC PATCH v3 00/xx] Multipath TCP prerequisites
>
>
> The MPTCP upstreaming community has prepared a net-next RFCv3 patch
> set for review. The scope of this patch set is limited to prerequisite
> TCP core changes so we can get focused feedback in these areas.
>
> In this patch set we introduce some MPTCP definitions, additional ULP
> and skb extension features, TCP option space checking, and a few
> exported symbols.
>
>
> Our intent is to send this as a non-RFC series when the next phase of
> changes are ready to post. That second patch set will add CONFIG_MPTCP
> in Kconfig, introduce the MPTCP socket type, implement the protocol,
(maybe: implement an initial set of the protocol? Or setup the base?)
I could change "implement the protocol" to "implement the basic features
of the protocol".
> and add self tests.
>
>
> Clone/fetch:
> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next.git (tag: netdev-rfcv3)
A detail but where should we do the tag? At the end of the patches we are
going to send or at the end of the series? (or both)
I vote for "both" - and within the cover letter, it's the tag matching the
email series that is important to link to.
--
Mat Martineau
Intel
5:49 p.m.
Hi Mat,
On 08/10/2019 19:06, Mat Martineau wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> On 08/10/2019 01:28, Mat Martineau wrote:
[...]
>> Our intent is to send this as a non-RFC series when the next
phase of
>> changes are ready to post. That second patch set will add CONFIG_MPTCP
>> in Kconfig, introduce the MPTCP socket type, implement the protocol,
>
> (maybe: implement an initial set of the protocol? Or setup the base?)
>
I could change "implement the protocol" to "implement the basic features
of the protocol".
Sounds good to me!
>> and add self tests.
>>
>>
>> Clone/fetch:
>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next.git (tag: netdev-rfcv3)
>
> A detail but where should we do the tag? At the end of the patches we
> are going to send or at the end of the series? (or both)
I vote for "both" - and within the cover letter, it's the tag matching
the email series that is important to link to.
Good!
I just sent 2 new tags on Github:
- netdev-rfcv3 → the 10 patches we want to send to netdev
- netdev-rfcv3-full → the whole series
So for me, it is good to send:
bacb7e1855969bba78b32302453d2cc8ba0bc403..netdev-rfcv3
10 patches:
7ed0efc126c7 net: Make sock protocol value checks more specific
2438cd20c160 sock: Make sk_protocol a 16-bit value
51f02eaf9b97 tcp: Define IPPROTO_MPTCP
92842ca4e0a7 tcp: Add MPTCP option number
7760a37ca110 tcp, ulp: Add clone operation to tcp_ulp_ops
6b7cf8faca4e mptcp: Add MPTCP to skb extensions
dfe193e1a115 tcp: Prevent coalesce/collapse when skb has MPTCP
extensions
abf0c1235aa7 tcp: Export TCP functions and ops struct
f19334075ead tcp: Check for filled TCP option space before SACK
a477869c544e (tag: netdev-rfcv3) tcp: clean ext on tx recycle
Looking forward to read reviews from upstream :-)
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
1042
days inactive
1044
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Mat Martineau -
Matthieu Baerts -
Paolo Abeni