[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8ad4ca21-5b81-415b-b16c-6cc4b668921c@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 12:01:39 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: chia-yu.chang@...ia-bell-labs.com, edumazet@...gle.com, parav@...dia.com,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, horms@...nel.org,
dsahern@...nel.org, kuniyu@...gle.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, dave.taht@...il.com, jhs@...atatu.com,
kuba@...nel.org, stephen@...workplumber.org, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
jiri@...nulli.us, davem@...emloft.net, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
donald.hunter@...il.com, ast@...erby.net, liuhangbin@...il.com,
shuah@...nel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, ij@...nel.org,
ncardwell@...gle.com, koen.de_schepper@...ia-bell-labs.com,
g.white@...lelabs.com, ingemar.s.johansson@...csson.com,
mirja.kuehlewind@...csson.com, cheshire@...le.com, rs.ietf@....at,
Jason_Livingood@...cast.com, vidhi_goel@...le.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 02/14] gro: flushing when CWR is set
negatively affects AccECN
On 10/30/25 3:34 PM, chia-yu.chang@...ia-bell-labs.com wrote:
> From: Ilpo Järvinen <ij@...nel.org>
>
> As AccECN may keep CWR bit asserted due to different
> interpretation of the bit, flushing with GRO because of
> CWR may effectively disable GRO until AccECN counter
> field changes such that CWR-bit becomes 0.
>
> There is no harm done from not immediately forwarding the
> CWR'ed segment with RFC3168 ECN.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ij@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Chia-Yu Chang <chia-yu.chang@...ia-bell-labs.com>
Please provide a test/update the existing one to cover this case or move
to a later series. Possibly both :)
/P
Powered by blists - more mailing lists