From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8212251049719642240==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Florian Westphal To: mptcp at lists.01.org Subject: [MPTCP] Re: RFCv2 for netdev: what's missing? Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 17:00:35 +0200 Message-ID: <20191001150035.GE14819@breakpoint.cc> In-Reply-To: 0af3b2f0-48cc-ccba-7d50-dd98e2009257@tessares.net X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1951 --===============8212251049719642240== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Matthieu Baerts 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. --===============8212251049719642240==--