On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:05 AM Jianguo Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Jianguo Wu <[email protected]>
>
> In tcp_rcv_state_process(), should not call tcp_drop() for same case,
> like after process ACK packet in TCP_LAST_ACK state, it should call
> consume_skb() instead of tcp_drop() to be drop monitor friendly,
> otherwise every last ack will be report as dropped packet by drop monitor.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jianguo Wu <[email protected]>
> ---
1) net-next is closed
2) Same remarks as for the other patch.
You mark the packet as consumed, while maybe we had to throw away
some payload from it ?
You will have to wait for net-next being open,
then send patches with one change at a time, with clear explanations
and possibly packetdrill tests.
I am concerned about all these patches making future backports
difficult because of merge conflicts.
Hi,
Thanks for your reply. This is more complicated than I thought, i will do some more dig.
在 2022/3/23 21:40, Eric Dumazet 写道:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:05 AM Jianguo Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Jianguo Wu <[email protected]>
>>
>> In tcp_rcv_state_process(), should not call tcp_drop() for same case,
>> like after process ACK packet in TCP_LAST_ACK state, it should call
>> consume_skb() instead of tcp_drop() to be drop monitor friendly,
>> otherwise every last ack will be report as dropped packet by drop monitor.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jianguo Wu <[email protected]>
>> ---
>
> 1) net-next is closed
>
> 2) Same remarks as for the other patch.
> You mark the packet as consumed, while maybe we had to throw away
> some payload from it ?
>
> You will have to wait for net-next being open,
> then send patches with one change at a time, with clear explanations
> and possibly packetdrill tests.
>
> I am concerned about all these patches making future backports
> difficult because of merge conflicts.