Re: [MPTCP] [Weekly meetings] MoM - 31st of January 2019

Re: [MPTCP] [Weekly meetings] MoM - 31st of January 2019

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2697 bytes --]

Hi Florian,

Thank you for your answer here!

On 31/01/2019 19:19, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the summary.
> 
> [..]
> 
>> Mat and Peter's new patch-set:
>>     - Florian mentioned that it could be nice to add a kselftest. We
>> need to check how other network protocols are doing their kselftests.
> 
> Ok, I'll handle this, no problem.

Great, thank you!

>> Florian. We report this discussion to next week. Here are the questions
>> to discuss:
>>     - focus on the first patch-set and try to upstream this base?
> 
> Is that t/upstream / mmartineau-init-mptcp-v5?

The goal would be to integrate "accepted" commits. In other words, all
the ones with a +2 starting from:
https://review.gerrithub.io/c/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/+/437388/6

They would be integrated in mptcp_net-next repo, between 'net-next' and
't/upstream'. I don't know if you are familiar with Topgit but yes,
these commits will be in 't/upstream' (with other "merge" commits).

I will look at automating the export of these commits on top of
'net-next': to always have "proper" commits on top of latest net-next
for people interesting in commit messages, not only in code.

> If so, +1 from me.
> 
> Only question from my side:
> 
>>     - testing? (packetdrill?)
> 
> I think the initial submission should come with a simple
> self-test, i.e. {client,server}.c + a shell script to glue those
> together.  Just to exercise most basic mptcp code paths.
> 
> They can be extended (like add/remove subflows) when those features
> are added.

That's a good idea to have that also to show an example of how to add
MPTCP support to a client/server app!

> Getting mptcp packetdrill support would be great of course,
> but I think its something that should be focused on later on
> to handle/test/validate wire-protocol.

If you want, there is already a version of Packetdrill that supports
MPTCP: https://github.com/aschils/packetdrill_mptcp

There are a few known issues and the code is not upstreamable like that
but if we can already use it like that, that's better than nothing :)

If later one we can develop a version of packetdrill based on latest
Google's version that would be really nice!

>>     - We propose to have the next one on Thursday, the 7th of February.
> 
> Good, I should be able to attend again (I'm barely functional due some
> virus).

Take care :)

Have a good day,
Matt

-- 
Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Re: [MPTCP] [Weekly meetings] MoM - 31st of January 2019

[Florian Westphal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1199 bytes --]

Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:

Thanks for the summary.

[..]

> Mat and Peter's new patch-set:
>     - Florian mentioned that it could be nice to add a kselftest. We
> need to check how other network protocols are doing their kselftests.

Ok, I'll handle this, no problem.

> Florian. We report this discussion to next week. Here are the questions
> to discuss:
>     - focus on the first patch-set and try to upstream this base?

Is that t/upstream / mmartineau-init-mptcp-v5?
If so, +1 from me.

Only question from my side:

>     - testing? (packetdrill?)

I think the initial submission should come with a simple
self-test, i.e. {client,server}.c + a shell script to glue those
together.  Just to exercise most basic mptcp code paths.

They can be extended (like add/remove subflows) when those features
are added.

Getting mptcp packetdrill support would be great of course,
but I think its something that should be focused on later on
to handle/test/validate wire-protocol.

>     - We propose to have the next one on Thursday, the 7th of February.

Good, I should be able to attend again (I'm barely functional due some
virus).

[MPTCP] [Weekly meetings] MoM - 31st of January 2019

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2969 bytes --]

Hello,

We just had our 37th meeting with Mat and Ossama (Intel OTC), Christoph
(Apple), Hoang (UCLouvain) and myself (Tessares).

Thanks again for this new good meeting!



Here are the minutes of the meeting:



Mat and Peter's new patch-set:
    - it is on Gerrit:
https://review.gerrithub.io/c/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/+/437388/6
    - Matth and Christoph started the new reviews: see Gerrit
    - Florian commented too:
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2019-January/000981.html
    - Florian mentioned that it could be nice to add a kselftest. We
need to check how other network protocols are doing their kselftests.
(Florian also proposed to have a look at that.)
    - ULP to manage subflows by Peter: seems to be the way to go not to
expose the new proto to userspace, linked to:
https://review.gerrithub.io/c/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/+/437392/6



Integrate changes in MPTCP repo (mptcp_net-next):
    - Proposition to integrate reviewed/validated (code review +2)
changes in mptcp net-next tree. It seems we are all OK with that.
    - Matth can integrate changes directly in topgit (no need to use the
Gerrit' submit button)
    - What would be upstreamed in term of code would be in t/upstream
branch but in term of commits (with the description) would be the result
of a 'tg export'.
    - Matth: what is also possible is to ask the CI to 'tg export' on a
clean branch on top of Dave's net-next. It is something easy to do (with
1 topgit command). Might help people who doesn't want to setup topgit to
export the tree and see the commits messages.



Misc:
    - alternative to topgit but for the future: git evolve
    - doc:
https://github.com/gitster/git/blob/sx/evolve/Documentation/technical/evolve.txt
    - submission:
https://public-inbox.org/git/20190127194415.171035-1-sxenos(a)google.com/t/#u



What's next?
    -  we already discussed about that last time but without Peter and
Florian. We report this discussion to next week. Here are the questions
to discuss:
    - focus on the first patch-set and try to upstream this base?
    - integrate Mat and Peter's patch-set in our topgit tree? (or at
least what we agreed on) not to have a lot of pending changes?
    - removing feature on mptcp_net-next/master?
    - testing? (packetdrill?)



mptcp_trunk:
    - two new patches from Christoph. To be reviewed and applied.



Next meeting:
    - We propose to have the next one on Thursday, the 7th of February.
    - Usual time: 17:00 UTC (9am PST, 6pm CET)
    - Still open to everyone!
    - https://annuel2.framapad.org/p/mptcp_upstreaming_20190207



Feel free to comment on these points and propose new ones for the next
meeting!


Talk to you next week,
Matthieu
-- 
Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium