Hi Alexei,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 9:13 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:55 AM Nicolas Rybowski
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alexei,
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback!
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:01 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 05:1
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:55 AM Nicolas Rybowski
wrote:
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:01 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 05:15:38PM +0200, Nicolas Rybowski wrote:
> > > Previously it was not possible to make a distinctio
Hi Alexei,
Thanks for the feedback!
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:01 AM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 05:15:38PM +0200, Nicolas Rybowski wrote:
> > Previously it was not possible to make a distinction between plain TCP
> > sockets and MPTCP subflow sockets on the BPF_PROG_TY
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 05:15:38PM +0200, Nicolas Rybowski wrote:
> Previously it was not possible to make a distinction between plain TCP
> sockets and MPTCP subflow sockets on the BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS hook.
>
> This patch series now enables a fine control of subflow sockets. In its
> current s
Previously it was not possible to make a distinction between plain TCP
sockets and MPTCP subflow sockets on the BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS hook.
This patch series now enables a fine control of subflow sockets. In its
current state, it allows to put different sockopt on each subflow from a
same MPTCP c
