From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C0EC43603 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6202465E for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="R2tjS6Ac" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727640AbfLTPv7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:51:59 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:57476 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727362AbfLTPv7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:51:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1576857118; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=RNzUXdHPbC9QG5PI7iEnbaTNbG0U51Xojbeo3Jhjtz4=; b=R2tjS6AcOaZ19oxpbtIG49KN8wMYWrMF54fXP3Th9xnrdkT+eWZYt09Er0FHS5MA4AAf4K CqVyNb3yYo2Bs4tbO1veJ6wcsBdJHthKNgl7K4Wd4A4bPULAi1jUSHtOactdgQPYL9TlaN CxNb7wXKJSfCucFL2KAZ/85+G7QZ/To= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-195-lftL74DuPQiVy_45GraklA-1; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:51:54 -0500 X-MC-Unique: lftL74DuPQiVy_45GraklA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 154CE1005502; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-116-246.ams2.redhat.com (ovpn-116-246.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.246]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E537B5DA2C; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:51:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <581ec29dccd8d499d7cb2041218c1fcca90da29a.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/15] Multipath TCP part 2: Single subflow From: Paolo Abeni To: Eric Dumazet , David Miller , mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, mptcp@lists.01.org Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:51:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1eb6643d-c0c1-1331-4a32-720240d4fd25@gmail.com> References: <20191218195510.7782-1-mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com> <20191218.124244.864160487872326152.davem@davemloft.net> <1eb6643d-c0c1-1331-4a32-720240d4fd25@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.5 (3.32.5-1.fc30) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 07:03 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On 12/18/19 12:42 PM, David Miller wrote: > > From: Mat Martineau > > Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:54:55 -0800 > > > > > v1 -> v2: Rebased on latest "Multipath TCP: Prerequisites" v3 series > > > > This really can't proceed in this manner. > > > > Wait until one patch series is fully reviewed and integrated before > > trying to build things on top of it, ok? > > > > Nobody is going to review this second series in any reasonable manner > > while the prerequisites are not upstream yet. > > > > Also I want to point that for some reasons MPTCP folks provide > patch series during the last two weeks of the year. > > I don't know about you, but I try to share this time with my family. > So this does not make me being indulgent about MPTCP :/ We are sorry if our course of action is perceived as aggressive or worse. The idea was to share our progress giving enough context to get a more complete picture. We tried to reply to the feedback in a timely manner to demonstrate collaborative behavior and not with the goal to hard press anyone! We are very sorry if we gave a different impression! We understand the time of the year is unfortunate, we have been a bit delayed by several related an unrelated issues - idea was to post v1 just after net-next re-open. We appreciate a lot all the feedback received, which helped improving the code significantly. I understand you prefer we will have the next iteration in the new year, am I correct? Thank you! Paolo