From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B40B77B for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 22:54:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1664492059; x=1696028059; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=dM8Q78+cCEtLn0Rn1sAwFh+4ECWR4DePP3E4i5wmT8I=; b=cwjnWGom2OP3zMqTlGoiIWy4gNFc3T6tXOHA7e2YquwdKQWvxj6nCO+q /JldyVtLPZJVa+CPTxvmxMzqMgMy5U9BZHMNpp4xMXVdCYb06g2/T7bNl 7pZUE64Sibkw6cHMzLeBZIkwqirUAvtZnAhUUDgdRwB7ePxkRbftEMKMa XutdsOjgxlSiiW9UIztmu8yO7e1wRShJ7/2s7/qllrnzeMxO2chbHP246 Rbh9FycdF7XbEW2So0dfWZAaF9DERGZWeYTST3r9CA2qAIJ6SJbn2mY3I Q9usA13g1jU5Uiv0phCBD/1Dv9uhZ9dUc6e99VmbG9RGlNrI6/VB3g09C w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10485"; a="303535037" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,356,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="303535037" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Sep 2022 15:54:19 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10485"; a="653312651" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,356,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="653312651" Received: from kisungle-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.209.49.82]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Sep 2022 15:54:19 -0700 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 15:54:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Mat Martineau To: Paolo Abeni cc: Matthieu Baerts , mptcp@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: MPTCP upstreaming, week of 26-Sept-2022 In-Reply-To: <0a6a01130bc558691a0fcd8dab0f2ac77fda199f.camel@redhat.com> Message-ID: <397e0988-7a03-3073-ea12-4845a44b85b7@linux.intel.com> References: <57e168ae-9de0-c986-cab1-a130e72e4e95@linux.intel.com> <2d24f789-9fc1-0229-4b37-ff570c4be080@tessares.net> <0a6a01130bc558691a0fcd8dab0f2ac77fda199f.camel@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-2083699861-1664492059=:10178" This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-2083699861-1664492059=:10178 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Tue, 27 Sep 2022, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On Tue, 2022-09-27 at 10:07 +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote: >> Hi Mat, Paolo, >> >> On 27/09/2022 02:10, Mat Martineau wrote: >>> >>>     - Features for net-next: >>> >>>         - [ef4a93571133] mptcp: propagate fastclose error (Paolo Abeni) >>>         - [885cab8b5203] mptcp: use fastclose on more edge scenarios >>> (Paolo Abeni) >>>         - [13c82c8b0d9f] selftests: mptcp: update and extend fastclose >>> test-cases (Paolo Abeni): >>>             - can wait a bit, Paolo would like to have a look at the >>> modification on packetdrill side >>> >>> >>> The net-next patches are slightly more complicated: >>> >>>  * They were updated with a squash-to patch today >>>  * Need to wait until fastopen patches are merged >> >> We should at least wait for the fastopen patches to be applied I suppose. >> >>>  * There is a minor conflict with the -net patches (just diff context) >>>    in "mptcp: use fastclose on more edge scenarios". >>> >>> >>> Regarding the conflict, I could wait until Friday for a likely >>> net/net-next sync. >>> >>> Another option is to modify the patch slightly by moving >>> mptcp_check_readable() before __mptcp_check_send_data_fin(), it doesn't >>> make the diff any larger and avoids the -net conflict. What do you think? >> >> We can also add a note in the commit and explain how to fix this >> conflict. I think the function is at the right place but it can also be >> moved if it eases stuff. > > > I think there is no rush for that patches. If the net patches will land > upstream soon, they will be likely merged by EoW. If there will be > another RC, we can rebase the net-next and send out still for 6.1, > othewise the fastclose patches can wait IMHO a few more weeks. > Thanks Paolo. With the net and net-next patches for MPTCP just merged today, and the backlog in netdev patchwork, I'll wait on the fastclose changes: ee1e43f10dc5 mptcp: update misleading comments. d1c02fee7732 selftests: mptcp: update and extend fastclose test-cases 61fc1bc2edeb mptcp: use fastclose on more edge scenarios 20af637811c9 mptcp: propagate fastclose error And the recent TCP_FASTOPEN_NO_COOKIE changes: de98c67ae3a9 mptcp: add TCP_FASTOPEN_NO_COOKIE support a05c21ad4572 mptcp: sockopt: make 'tcp_fastopen_connect' generic (plus "mptcp: sockopt: use new helper for TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT" that's still in patchwork). It sounds like rc8 is unlikely (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjc_CDPy5WbN=e_FtPrd0Yn2Wp4JcdRByeyDoM9azK1mA@mail.gmail.com/) but I can revisit next week if there isn't a final 6.0 on Sunday. Thanks, -- Mat Martineau Intel --0-2083699861-1664492059=:10178--