> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 2:30 PM
> To: Chia-Yu Chang (Nokia) <chia-yu.ch...@nokia-bell-labs.com>
> Cc: pab...@redhat.com; linux-doc@vger.kernel.org; cor...@lwn.net;
> ho...@kernel.org; dsah...@kernel.org; kun...@amazon.com;
> b...@vger.kernel.org; net...@vger.kernel.org; dave.t...@gmail.com;
> j...@mojatatu.com; k...@kernel.org; step...@networkplumber.org;
> xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com; j...@resnulli.us; da...@davemloft.net;
> andrew+net...@lunn.ch; donald.hun...@gmail.com; a...@fiberby.net;
> liuhang...@gmail.com; sh...@kernel.org; linux-kselft...@vger.kernel.org;
> i...@kernel.org; ncardw...@google.com; Koen De Schepper (Nokia)
> <koen.de_schep...@nokia-bell-labs.com>; g.wh...@cablelabs.com;
> ingemar.s.johans...@ericsson.com; mirja.kuehlew...@ericsson.com;
> chesh...@apple.com; rs.i...@gmx.at; jason_living...@comcast.com;
> vidhi_g...@apple.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 net-next 10/14] tcp: accecn: AccECN option
>
>
> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking
> links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional
> information.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 1:40 AM <chia-yu.ch...@nokia-bell-labs.com> wrote:
[...]
> > /* Used for make_synack to form the ACE flags */ diff --git
> > a/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h b/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h index
> > bdac8c42fa82..53e0e85b52be 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h
> > @@ -316,6 +316,13 @@ struct tcp_info {
> > * in milliseconds, including any
> > * unfinished recovery.
> > */
> > + __u32 tcpi_received_ce; /* # of CE marks received */
> > + __u32 tcpi_delivered_e1_bytes; /* Accurate ECN byte counters */
> > + __u32 tcpi_delivered_e0_bytes;
> > + __u32 tcpi_delivered_ce_bytes;
> > + __u32 tcpi_received_e1_bytes;
> > + __u32 tcpi_received_e0_bytes;
> > + __u32 tcpi_received_ce_bytes;
> > };
> >
>
> We do not add more fields to tcp_info, unless added fields are a multiple of
> 64 bits.
>
> Otherwise a hole is added and can not be recovered.
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the feedback.
Then, would it make sense to add __u32 reserved; here or this is not an option?
Chia-Yu
