From: Florian Westphal <fw at strlen.de>
To: mptcp at lists.01.org
Subject: [MPTCP] Re: RFCv2 for netdev: what's missing?
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 17:00:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191001150035.GE14819@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 0af3b2f0-48cc-ccba-7d50-dd98e2009257@tessares.net
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1475 bytes --]
Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
> At the last meeting, we said it would be good to send a new RFCv2 to
> netdev before the next meeting while windows are closed. I guess today
> would be good, no?
Thanks for bringing this up.
> What do we still need to do?
> - the cover letter: Mat is it still OK to do it on your side?
> - any other patches to apply before this?
I think current export branch is fine for RFCv2.
> Here are the pending patches:
[..]
> - mptcp: Remove all traces of checksum support: do we want it?
Do you mean in general or for RFC?
For RFC I think it depends on how much work you want to
get yourself into right now, as it would need to be squashed, sending
it as extra patch is strange.
> - mptcp: add MIB counter infrastructure: Waiting for accept (last review)
> - mptcp: allow MPTCP sockets by default: can be applied
> - mptcp: prefix mptcp_ to exposed pm_ routines.
These three would be nice to have for sure.
> For the moment, I am blocked with "mptcp: Remove all traces of checksum
> support" but I can drop this rebase to work on other patches if others
> are required for the RFCv2.
>
> What's your point of view on this?
I think merging in the checksum support remove before RFCv2 and the
other three (MIB, mptcp-enable-by-default, mptcp_pm_ prefix) would be
great. I think its even ok to delay the series for a few days to get
those in.
Let me know if i can help.
next reply other threads:[~2019-10-01 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-01 15:00 Florian Westphal [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-10-04 11:25 [MPTCP] Re: RFCv2 for netdev: what's missing? Matthieu Baerts
2019-10-03 19:21 Florian Westphal
2019-10-03 8:12 Paolo Abeni
2019-10-03 7:46 Florian Westphal
2019-10-03 0:39 Mat Martineau
2019-10-02 23:55 Mat Martineau
2019-10-02 23:41 Mat Martineau
2019-10-02 21:11 Matthieu Baerts
2019-10-01 23:07 Mat Martineau
2019-10-01 20:26 Paolo Abeni
2019-10-01 19:40 Matthieu Baerts
2019-10-01 19:28 Matthieu Baerts
2019-10-01 17:21 Mat Martineau
2019-10-01 16:23 Mat Martineau
2019-10-01 16:14 Peter Krystad
2019-10-01 16:07 Paolo Abeni
2019-10-01 15:34 Florian Westphal
2019-10-01 15:14 Matthieu Baerts
2019-10-01 15:07 Matthieu Baerts
2019-10-01 14:58 Paolo Abeni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191001150035.GE14819@breakpoint.cc \
--to=unknown@example.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.