Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 09:49:46 +0000 From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <Richard.Scheffenegger@netapp.com> To: "rgrimes@FreeBSD.org" <rgrimes@FreeBSD.org>, Michael Tuexen <tuexen@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Transport <freebsd-transport@freebsd.org> Subject: ECN backports Message-ID: <SN4PR0601MB37284A9FA6E22D547A621455865D0@SN4PR0601MB3728.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi guys, I'm currently reviewing the pending backports from all the Diffs I have sup= plied so far. One major one is D22497, where all the ECN-related flags got moved from TF_= (t_flags) to TF2_ (t_flags2), and subsequently, all other ECN-related patc= hes will have merge conflicts. However, since there was a major interop issue around CWR flag not being se= t according to RFC (D23364) which I backported out-of-line all the way to r= eleng 11.4, stable/11 and stable/12 (manually adjusting the proper flag ref= erences), I am now wondering: Do we want to backport that (major) change into stable/12, where ECN-flags = move between the tcpcb fields? Or shall we retain the old TF flags for ECN in stable/12, manually patching= any backports from TF2 to TF, for binary compatibility reasons (although I= guess there aren't that many people who go debugging the TCPCB without rec= ompiling the correctly matching tools)? Best regards, Richard Scheffenegger
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?SN4PR0601MB37284A9FA6E22D547A621455865D0>