Hi Christoph - Thanks again for posting the RFC patch set to netdev in December. In case folks on this mailing list missed it, here's the link: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg472988.html Other than the license information change, are you considering any other modifications?

I suggest modifying the last section of the cover letter (the part starting with "One point of discussion...") for the next round: """ There is still work to be done to more efficiently check for extra TCP options in performance-sensitive code paths. A rate-limited static key would nearly eliminate overhead if no extra TCP options are in use system-wide, or a flag in a likely-hot cache line could work well. For now we opted for a simple if (unlikely(!hlist_empty(...)) check. """

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Christoph Paasch wrote: > On 25/01/18 - 11:41:53, Mat Martineau wrote: > > Thanks again for posting the RFC patch set to netdev in December. In case > > folks on this mailing list missed it, here's the link: > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg472988.html > > > > Other than the license information change, are you considering any other > > modifications? > > no, not really. I was planning to get some performance numbers. But couldn't > get to it because of other unrelated urgencies that took my time. > > > I suggest modifying the last section of the cover letter (the part starting > > with "One point of discussion...") for the next round: > > > > """ > > There is still work to be done to more efficiently check for extra TCP > > options in performance-sensitive code paths. A rate-limited static key would > > nearly eliminate overhead if no extra TCP options are in use system-wide, or > > a flag in a likely-hot cache line could work well. > > > > For now we opted for a simple if (unlikely(!hlist_empty(...)) check. > > """ > > That sounds good! > > > What do you suggest - should we simply resubmit the RFCs as v2 with the > minor changes? (the timing of the first submission was probably fairly bad > as most people were out on Christmas vacation) > Yes, v2 with the minor changes is the way to go. The timing should be better - Eric has been reviewing patches and recent RFCs in the archives seem to have a few replies.

I looked around the git history to see if anyone would obviously be interested from a TCP md5sig perspective. The only recent contributor I found (besides Eric) was Ivan Delalande, see commit c03fa9bcac. Maybe he would be good for the cc list.