[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7df9baf9-040f-41ae-b292-f3155842b5f4@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 13:50:34 +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 v13 net-next 00/15] AccECN protocol case handling series
On 1/31/26 11:25 PM, chia-yu.chang@...ia-bell-labs.com wrote:
> From: Chia-Yu Chang <chia-yu.chang@...ia-bell-labs.com>
>
> Hello,
>
> Plesae find the v13 AccECN case handling patch series, which covers
> several excpetional case handling of Accurate ECN spec (RFC9768),
> adds new identifiers to be used by CC modules, adds ecn_delta into
> rate_sample, and keeps the ACE counter for computation, etc.
>
> This patch series is part of the full AccECN patch series, which is at
> https://github.com/L4STeam/linux-net-next/commits/upstream_l4steam/
Beside the just shared feedback, the AI reported a bunch of other stuff
that are not relevant:
- fixes tags, IMHO not needed since the touched features were just
partially implemented before
- uapi breakage, already ruled out as irrelevant since the iproute bits
are not there yet
- pktdrill syntax, which is a little inconsistent but AFAICS correct.
I'm not sure about the BIT() macro usage in uAPI, which is already a
thing in many uAPI exposed headers, but does not look correct. I guess
it could be handled with a follow-up, if needed.
So the only feedback the could really require a new revision is WRT ECN
flags handling on retransmission - and I'm not 110% it needs a new
revision: please double check it.
Thanks,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists