From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f50.google.com (mail-ed1-f50.google.com [209.85.208.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1225E393 for ; Sat, 14 May 2022 16:31:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f50.google.com with SMTP id fd25so786966edb.3 for ; Sat, 14 May 2022 09:31:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tessares-net.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3y3z5+F8rBSQDElkXduhZJO5UOF1bJknve6rcjFsO1I=; b=xA9VbCMEJ75zZF+JSp5fH7O7FWkjDXdOED7XmZEo1mPysTZsKf5WmxwLHvtKmjrELO 0wiKn+hu8U2/5/+5c7aFyHtzhMUH4+x5Fm5X3DQkTFKrzbwP0n/kPAaObDP2L3+f9k9F hRB8IcLAYJJ/XQyQCD5SgGxF6krxb8K59pxjC4ZffwtUq+tfqMI4TPnhk8l+Zn2gn/8y RnKRTmLXdAy0YJec/o9aJIBLoPu4kp7eSTABVhJNVPjk031XRGXjZ/8g4Ex4YdHVkBh+ 6KWdDnyue3+LuGpM/E7k4e4q/v8uyu3ncp+4ofq63emzFh6y7yMp31w0OSmJ4HP/NIK2 PA2g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3y3z5+F8rBSQDElkXduhZJO5UOF1bJknve6rcjFsO1I=; b=xQ2f2+IPmtQoE+Qv8g5mXem2cSNgo3inPT1zCfh2Bff2m07ia1S/ZOk7JJvaDG96zy dD3vVxh3eQGKu4i5jHaqOsmBpLoqDeE3jEkzGyci9WjHMy99pZxmlgd09qj1JsaTtlJl NlWVZKnci6owssM/4NdOedz/V/GxRmu66tl/WHVIeTma6/diDN1MjsEJ8JmmISIUR21e BilPLTwqk82hD/edryvKTn1n9DMy9XtlO9tIXzPdH0AfY9KpaST+oE+0ANl55wwiVHL5 DZ5be6x5q1nOzm8gM2oQoIWoImtlLugDuvgAt6rXi796kY1YPGdxa2WsWNaP1ABKlqOw oqIw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531TZYUYJZHMvnrbZnh149UX5daQp/d2shCVZLdiQVoeIQVZ3etO auKP+sFLw8qy7aSJBfmvjhlpTA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyogkzY1bwXNq84218LBZT3LuUTCvrdNHs5FuSEGs6P2CSgj/pY3ObloctgGZ+xmvXn9mCSwg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:11cd:b0:427:bda5:542f with SMTP id j13-20020a05640211cd00b00427bda5542fmr4614046edw.290.1652545878849; Sat, 14 May 2022 09:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2a02:578:8593:1200:4aeb:7d32:49c3:8dac? ([2a02:578:8593:1200:4aeb:7d32:49c3:8dac]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 13-20020a17090602cd00b006f3ef214e1asm1831547ejk.128.2022.05.14.09.31.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 14 May 2022 09:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:31:17 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH mptcp-next v2 00/14] update bpf patches on export branch Content-Language: en-GB To: Geliang Tang Cc: Mat Martineau , mptcp@lists.linux.dev References: <8f2755bc-4c52-9837-c0db-2b620d7a3b22@tessares.net> <20220514154845.GA4189@bogon.HOST> From: Matthieu Baerts In-Reply-To: <20220514154845.GA4189@bogon.HOST> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Geliang, On 14/05/2022 17:48, Geliang Tang wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote: >> Hi Geliang, Mat >> >> On 11/05/2022 09:56, Geliang Tang wrote: >>> v2: >>> - drop "bpf: expose is_mptcp flag to bpf_tcp_sock" (Martin & Andrii) >>> - patch 3, use is_mptcp in tcp_sock, instead of bpf_tcp_sock (Martin & Andrii) >>> >>> base-commit: bcf89bc9c28e ("DO-NOT-MERGE: git markup: features >>> net-next-next") on export/20220510T054929 >>> >>> v1: >>> - drop bpf_mptcp_helpers.h (Andrii) >>> - patch 6, skip the test if 'ip mptcp monitor' is not supported (Mat) >> >> Thank you for the patches. >> >> I *think* everything is now sync in our tree but feel free to check >> because I had to "manually" compare patches with what was in our tree. >> >> But in theory, our tree is now ready for a v5. > > Thanks Matt, but three patches still need to be updated: > > Patch #4, selftests/bpf: test bpf_skc_to_mptcp_sock > > if (!tcp_sk->is_mptcp) { > > -> > > if (!is_mptcp) { Thank you, I missed that! - a973ee164a70 tg: fix wrong merge conflict resolution > Patch #10, mptcp: add sched in mptcp_sock > > struct mptcp_sock { > struct inet_connection_sock sk; > > - __u32 token; > - struct sock *first; > - char ca_name[TCP_CA_NAME_MAX]; > + __u32 token; > + struct sock *first; > + struct mptcp_sched_ops *sched; > + char ca_name[TCP_CA_NAME_MAX]; > } __attribute__((preserve_access_index)); > > -> > > __u32 token; > struct sock *first; > + struct mptcp_sched_ops *sched; > char ca_name[TCP_CA_NAME_MAX]; > } __attribute__((preserve_access_index)); I did that on purpose, I thought it was clearer to read after. Do you prefer not to change the alignment? > Patch #13, selftests/bpf: add bpf_first scheduler > > bpf_mptcp_helpers.h > > -> > > bpf_tcp_helpers.h Thanks! - fc2aafca4737: bpf: use bpf_tcp_helpers.h instead of the mptcp one Cheers, Matt -- Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions www.tessares.net