Re: [PATCH net 1/5] mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions
Matthieu Baerts <[email protected]> Fri, 31 Jul 2026 11:59:53 +0200
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.mptcp,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kernel.vger.stable |
|---|---|
| Organization | NGI0 Core |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Jakub, On 30/07/2026 22:27, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:14:53 +0200 Matthieu Baerts wrote: >> On 30/07/2026 02:23, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 19:11:57 +0200 Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote: >>>> Some MPTCP suboptions are mutually exclusive according to the RFC8684, >>>> but also because in different places, the code doesn't expect some >>>> combinations to be present. That's specially true for suboptions that >>>> would be present twice, but with different attributes. >>> >>> Looks like Clashiko has much to say about this patch. >>> Could you check? >> >> Sure, I will check that. >> >> Do you think Clashiko could look at patches from the MPTCP ML as well? >> Because the (deprecated?) AI review tool we use didn't find anything: >> >> https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-review.html?id=d1d1ff69-0f15-4812-ad16-e4f6f2df9f6b >> >> Or maybe that's because the model is different, and this can be easily >> fixed? Or maybe the prompts are different too? >> >> I'm asking, mainly because once patches have been accepted in our tree, >> it can be hard to have the original author fixing them. Not to block >> other patches too long, I often have to fix them, so I would prefer to >> get the same review tools (if possible) to prevent that :) > > Sorry about that, I know it's annoying. Not the best time TBH. > I'm modifying our instances very actively, I don't want to have > to worry about the extra surface of integrations. Hopefully things > converge soon and we can switch you over and kill that old service > we had completely. No problem, I understand and can wait. Cheers, Matt -- Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.