Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:35:18 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@netflix.com> Cc: Randall Ray Stewart <rrs@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r349893 - in head/sys: modules/tcp/rack netinet netinet/tcp_stacks sys Message-ID: <e5ed5f95-769d-fd0c-3189-daaa6382529f@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <7695E2FC-406D-46CE-88F2-0690B9AAA36D@netflix.com> References: <201907102040.x6AKeern006731@repo.freebsd.org> <4cdc824e-7e71-731d-50d4-c3f6231f9858@FreeBSD.org> <7695E2FC-406D-46CE-88F2-0690B9AAA36D@netflix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/10/19 9:48 PM, Randall Stewart wrote: > John: > > Thanks for the suggestions.. I have committed changes to the two > nits. As to M_PROTO1, I see that in the NF world we have removed > M_PROTO12 and moved the M_PROTO’s up 1 i.e. M_PROTO1 == 0x2000 > > So for now it is safe, since the M_TSTMP_LRO is not yet used.. but in > my up and coming commits I will have to address this i.e. either do > the same thing or just make it use M_PROTO12. > > There are a couple of places M_PROTO1 is used on the receive path > so that would not work there :o > > After I get the DSACK fixes in my next change to get BBR in will > be the LRO work… > > So maybe I should just settle on using M_PROTO12 for that > what do you think? If M_PROTO12 isn't used in the tree, then the approach we've used in the past is to bump up the M_PROTO<n> values by one as in the NF tree. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e5ed5f95-769d-fd0c-3189-daaa6382529f>