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? R > On Jul 10, 2019, at 7:28 PM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 7/10/19 1:40 PM, Randall Stewart wrote: >> Author: rrs >> Date: Wed Jul 10 20:40:39 2019 >> New Revision: 349893 >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/349893 >> >> Log: >> This commit updates rack to what is basically being used at NF as >> well as sets in some of the groundwork for committing BBR. The >> hpts system is updated as well as some other needed utilities >> for the entrance of BBR. This is actually part 1 of 3 more >> needed commits which will finally complete with BBRv1 being >> added as a new tcp stack. >> >> Sponsored by: Netflix Inc. >> Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D20834 > > Is it safe for M_TSTMP_LRO to conflict with M_PROTO1? > > Also, it seems you changed the copyright range on rack.c from > 2016-2019 to just 2016 which I suspect is an accident. > > I would suggest using #error here: > > #ifndef TCPHPTS > fatal error missing option TCPHSTS in the build; > #endif > > -- > John Baldwin ------ Randall Stewart r...@netflix.com _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
