[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89i++X8hRu5nc4ChyYxf=J1kT0QF0sMOW8BLkwpNWi+bkiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 10:31:26 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: chia-yu.chang@...ia-bell-labs.com
Cc: pabeni@...hat.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 v9 net-next 02/15] gro: flushing when CWR is set
negatively affects AccECN
On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 7:59 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.
Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists