On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 6:24 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonx...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:46 PM Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:30:02 +0800 Jason Xing wrote: > > > I'm not sure why the patch series has been changed to 'Changes > > > Requested', until now I don't think I need to change something. > > > > > > Should I repost this series (keeping the v6 tag) and then wait for > > > more comments? > > > > If Eric doesn't like it - it's not getting merged. > > I'm not a English native speaker. If I understand correctly, it seems > that Eric doesn't object to the patch series. Here is the quotation > [1]: > "If you feel the need to put them in a special group, this is fine by me." > > This rst reason mechanism can cover all the possible reasons for both > TCP and MPTCP. We don't need to reinvent some definitions of reset > reasons which are totally the same as drop reasons. Also, we don't > need to reinvent something to cover MPTCP. If people are willing to > contribute more rst reasons, they can find a good place. > > Reset is one big complicated 'issue' in production. I spent a lot of > time handling all kinds of reset reasons daily. I'm apparently not the > only one. I just want to make admins' lives easier, including me. This > special/separate reason group is important because we can extend it in > the future, which will not get confused. > > I hope it can have a chance to get merged :) Thank you. > > [1]: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cann89i+alo_agyc8dr8dkfyi+6wpzcgrogysvgr8frfrvaa...@mail.gmail.com/ > > Thanks, > Jason
My objection was these casts between enums. Especially if hiding with (u32) I see no reason for adding these casts in TCP stack. When I said "If you feel the need to put them in a special group, this is fine by me.", this was really about partitioning the existing enum into groups, if you prefer having a group of 'RES reasons'
