On 10/13/25 7:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > From: Ilpo Järvinen <[email protected]> > > As AccECN may keep CWR bit asserted due to different > interpretation of the bit, flushing with GRO because of > CWR may effectively disable GRO until AccECN counter > field changes such that CWR-bit becomes 0. > > There is no harm done from not immediately forwarding the > CWR'ed segment with RFC3168 ECN.
I guess this change could introduce additional latency for RFC3168 notification, which sounds not good. On the flip side adding too much AccECN logic to GRO (i.e. to allow aggregation only for AccECN enabled flows) looks overkill. @Eric: WDYT? Thanks, Paolo
