Re: [PATCH v2] options.c: add DSCP code LE Least Effort
Hi, Kevin,
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 23:45, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant via openwrt-devel
wrote:
>
> The sender domain has a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy which disallows
> sending mailing list messages using the original "From" header.
>
> To mitigate this problem, the original message has been wrapped
> automatically by the mailing list software.
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> Cc: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> Bcc:
> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2022 23:42:27 +
> Subject: [PATCH v2] options.c: add DSCP code LE Least Effort
> RFC-8622 implements a low priority DSCP marking called 'Least Effort' or
> 'LE' Instead of prioritising traffic in varying degrees, this defines a
> scum class of packet that really is the lowest of the low and you may
> consider forwarding if you really have nothing better to do.
>
> This patch adds LE class support to firewall3.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> ---
> options.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/options.c b/options.c
> index 6131786..2f419a3 100644
> --- a/options.c
> +++ b/options.c
> @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ static const struct { const char *name; uint8_t dscp; }
> dscp_classes[] = {
> { "CS6", 0x30 },
> { "CS7", 0x38 },
> { "BE", 0x00 },
> + { "LE", 0x01 },
> { "AF11", 0x0a },
> { "AF12", 0x0c },
> { "AF13", 0x0e },
> --
> 2.32.0 (Apple Git-132)
>
Seems sensible to me. Nice description, and bonus points for the RFC
reference. :)
Reviewed-by: Rui Salvaterra
Thanks,
Rui
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[PATCH v2] options.c: add DSCP code LE Least Effort
The sender domain has a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy which disallows
sending mailing list messages using the original "From" header.
To mitigate this problem, the original message has been wrapped
automatically by the mailing list software.--- Begin Message ---
RFC-8622 implements a low priority DSCP marking called 'Least Effort' or
'LE' Instead of prioritising traffic in varying degrees, this defines a
scum class of packet that really is the lowest of the low and you may
consider forwarding if you really have nothing better to do.
This patch adds LE class support to firewall3.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
---
options.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/options.c b/options.c
index 6131786..2f419a3 100644
--- a/options.c
+++ b/options.c
@@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ static const struct { const char *name; uint8_t dscp; }
dscp_classes[] = {
{ "CS6", 0x30 },
{ "CS7", 0x38 },
{ "BE", 0x00 },
+ { "LE", 0x01 },
{ "AF11", 0x0a },
{ "AF12", 0x0c },
{ "AF13", 0x0e },
--
2.32.0 (Apple Git-132)
--- End Message ---
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Switch issues and CI to GitHub
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 08:02:30PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Sam Kuper writes: >> Not everyone has, or can have, a Microsoft (GitHub) account. > > Please explain. > > These terms are pretty much identical: > > > https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#b-account-terms > https://man.sr.ht/terms.md#account-terms > > You must be > a) human, > b) age 13 or older, and > c) obey US law. > > So who exactly can have a SourceHut account but not a Github account? At least anyone who: - doesn't run proprietary JavaScript; or - boycotts PRISM participants (e.g. Microsoft); or - boycotts GitHub or Microsoft for other reasons; or - accesses via Tor (IIRC - some time ago now). Also, people in the following territories have limited or no GitHub access: - Syria - Crimea - North Korea. People in those territories potentially have far more need of trustworthy routers, whose code is under their own control, than people almost anywhere else in the world. Developers there perhaps also need more than most to have chances to improve their skills, so as to build/maintain local infrastructure or to emigrate to an employer in a more hospitable country. Sam -- A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: When is top-posting a bad thing? () ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary /\ file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [PATCH] options.c: add DSCP code LE Least Effort
Hi, Kevin,
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 15:38, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant via openwrt-devel
wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> ---
> options.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/options.c b/options.c
> index 6131786..2f419a3 100644
> --- a/options.c
> +++ b/options.c
> @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ static const struct { const char *name; uint8_t dscp; }
> dscp_classes[] = {
> { "CS6", 0x30 },
> { "CS7", 0x38 },
> { "BE", 0x00 },
> + { "LE", 0x01 },
> { "AF11", 0x0a },
> { "AF12", 0x0c },
> { "AF13", 0x0e },
> --
> 2.32.0 (Apple Git-132)
>
This patch has no description at all, unfortunately. Could you please
elaborate a bit on what it does and why it's needed? :)
Thanks,
Rui
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Switch issues and CI to GitHub
Sam Kuper writes: > Not everyone has, or can have, a Microsoft (GitHub) account. Please explain. These terms are pretty much identical: https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#b-account-terms https://man.sr.ht/terms.md#account-terms You must be a) human, b) age 13 or older, and c) obey US law. So who exactly can have a SourceHut account but not a Github account? Bjørn ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Switch issues and CI to GitHub
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 10:31:01AM -0600, Lao Shaw wrote: > github is used by so many open source projects and it becomes the de > facto git repo platform for many, This is a tragedy. > what makes openwrt so special to the point that github is not good > enough and your idea will do better (for long term with reliability > and easy to maintain)? what exactly is that and why all those OSS > projects are fine with it. This is majoritarian thinking. It's like architects neglecting, for centuries, to include step-free access in public buildings, because "Most people are OK with it." It excludes others. Not everyone has, or can have, a Microsoft (GitHub) account. Not everyone uses proprietary JavaScript or is otherwise able to report bugs or submit patches GitHub. > Move the CI and repos and issues and even discussions to github No, please DO NOT move OpenWRT core infrastructure to GitHub. > so the resource-limited core developers can focus on evolving openwrt > itself, instead of spending cycles on its infrastructure. If OpenWRT devs/maintainers want to outsource code/bug-hosting, please look at accessible FOSS hosts like SourceHut, as previously mentioned. Sam ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Switch issues and CI to GitHub
> > Hi all, > > Back at the Hamburg meeting in 2019 and a succeeding vote we decided to > migrate over to a self-hosted GitLab instance. Some years passed and nothing > really happened so I’d like to give this another go. > > None of the OpenWrt project members is willing to setup and maintain a GitLab > instance and there were multiple vetos again gitlab.com. > > Our current bug tracker at bugs.openwrt.org is used by a minority of users > (and devs), all community repositories (LuCI, packages, …) use GitHub for > issue tracking. Instead of maintaining flyspray and the server, I’d like to > export all flyspray issues, migrate them to GitHub and open GitHub issues for > openwrt/openwrt to the public. A static or read-only version of flyspray > could be hosted for the near future. > > Secondly I’d like to give the CI of the main repository another go. Our CI to > build Docker images is currently on gitlab.com, I’d migrate that over to > GitHub. Also I’d suggest to add similar CI checks as added to the packages > (and routing and video and LuCI) repository. We could compile targets and > tooling, check checksums etc, even build snapshots to lower the resource > usage of our Buildbot infrastructure. > > During a recent _poll_ in #openwrt-adm multiple members liked the idea, > however before doing or voting on anything, I’d like to ask for more comments. > > Thanks for all feedback, > Paul +1 for github. The complain about ethical gnu stuff seems a bit wrong and IMHO doesn't really makes sense. The only complaint about github is that it has some limitations for CI and that it is run by ""evil"" MS. Aside from that if used correctly Github is very powerful. Just check some project like vscode or terminal where you can set bot to quickly handle wrongly formatted issues or pr. (I notice we have many) Currently the system for reporting bug is problematic and most of the time users don't even know it's a thing. Also the priority and the tracking system is a bit wrong. On top of that, moving importance to github would also makes devs care more about pr on Github instead of only checking the mailing list. Using the mailing list is good for devs that mainly focus on kernel and stuff but it's a nightmare for WIP or very big project like kernel transition or platform change. Another good tools that would benefit openwrt by using github is all the project system or also the basic milestone thing. Would be good to start creating an Issue that would summarize the target for a specific release. That would massively increase the tracking of it and make it clear where to focus. In short, my idea is to try in every way possible to unify stuff and start using more tools/feature to make it clear the current development state. There was a proposal of dropping the opkg upgrade stuff and move to a "quicker" release phase (aka publish more version). It's a little OT but I still think it's related to this kind of change. Using the project/milestone feature would remove all the hassle of creating a changelog/wiki entry/forum post for free as these minor releases will be on github with a linked issue/milestone. One small complaint I have is that I notice in the last few months a bit of confusion of the main target for the next release. We have the wiki page but we have no way to check the status. Example: - fw4 transition, we have a github issue but we were in a limbo for at least a month and current situation is to set it by default to force packages dev to update their package - 5.10 transition, email on mailing list and issue on a dev github page that got lost - dsa transition, many wip pr no tracking - ujail no idea but massive work under the hood by some packages? I'm an active openwrt user and many times I find some difficulties tracking the development state. Most of the time I check the git page and watch feature magically appear but it would be good to have a better tracking system and know what is the current direction of the team. In short, I'm very positive about a github migration but I really advise to put some effort and make it the right way by giving user/external devs more info about the current development state. (and also introduce some bots to autoclose/auto alert user of bad pr/issue to prevent any junk) ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Switch issues and CI to GitHub
+1 Yes let's move to github. github is used by so many open source projects and it becomes the de facto git repo platform for many, what makes openwrt so special to the point that github is not good enough and your idea will do better(for long term with reliability and easy to maintain)? what exactly is that and why all those OSS projects are fine with it. Move the CI and repos and issues and even discussions to github so the resource-limited core developers can focus on evolving openwrt itself, instead of spending cycles on its infrastructure. Shaw ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[PATCH] options.c: add DSCP code LE Least Effort
The sender domain has a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy which disallows
sending mailing list messages using the original "From" header.
To mitigate this problem, the original message has been wrapped
automatically by the mailing list software.--- Begin Message ---
Signed-off-by: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
---
options.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/options.c b/options.c
index 6131786..2f419a3 100644
--- a/options.c
+++ b/options.c
@@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ static const struct { const char *name; uint8_t dscp; }
dscp_classes[] = {
{ "CS6", 0x30 },
{ "CS7", 0x38 },
{ "BE", 0x00 },
+ { "LE", 0x01 },
{ "AF11", 0x0a },
{ "AF12", 0x0c },
{ "AF13", 0x0e },
--
2.32.0 (Apple Git-132)
--- End Message ---
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Switch issues and CI to GitHub
Rosen Penev writes: > https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html seems to be > complete garbage. Seems the higher the criteria, the less users. Yes, I encourage everyone to read that page. Personally, it made me worry more about the FSFs definition of freedom than using github... IMHO, upholding the laws of the national state you operate in is good. We all know by now that is is possible to define a state as "good", "bad" or "evil". But regardless of how you categorize the US, I think it would be far worse if Github didn't obey US law by complying with current US sanctions. Requiring non-free javascript for browser access. OK, valid point. But really? That battle was lost 20 years ago. Don't use a browser if you dislike non-free javascript. Couldn't even find librejs or icecat in Debian, but that might just be me? Github tries to be transparent about government takedowns, publishing as much as they can on https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns . This seems to be used as an argument against github? Where do I find the complete list of government takedonws affecting savannah.gnu.org projects? There is none? Well, THAT worries me. A lot. And then we have the big licensing argument. As a GPL project, why should you care whether the hosting site forces other hosted projects to use GPL (or other free) licensing? Which sites deserves the "libre" label: The site allowing any license, or the site allowing only FSF approved licenses? Looks like the FSF "freedom" is pretty limited to me. Bjørn ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
