On 11/6/25 12:01 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On 10/30/25 3:34 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. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Chia-Yu Chang <[email protected]> > > Please provide a test/update the existing one to cover this case or move > to a later series. Possibly both :)
Whoops, sorry. I'm looking at the patch in order and when I wrote the above I haven't seen yet patch 4/14. Please ignore. /P
