In D43166#986878, @rscheff wrote:

In D43166#986875, @np wrote:

b) If FIN/PSH are set in tcp flags then they will be set in the flags for the last segment only.
c) If CWR is set in the TCP hdr it is set in the hdr of the first segment only. The ECE bit is copied to all segments.
d) If there are IP options they are copied into each segment unaltered. This means if TCP timestamp option is in use the chip will use the same timestamp in all the segments for the TSO.

Thanks Navdeep!

Is there a r/w mask register similar to what Intel NICs offer available in the cxgbe hardware, to modify specifically the CWR behavior?

In D43166#984624, @gallatin wrote:

OK, I'm sorry, I was not aware of AccECN and its desired behavior of setting CWR on all segments.

In any case, a system wide tunable is probably not the correct approach. We would want to have the driver set a bit to advertise which ECN modes it supports. If there is hardware that supports both, and the driver cannot determine easily from the packet itself if normal ECN or AccECN should be used, we probably also need to hint to the driver which ECN mode should be used.

I'd like to see some input from NIC vendors here, so I'm glad @np is on the review.

I am experimenting with some additional caps that use bits in capabilities2/capenable2 and that's how I ran into this.

In D39865#917264, @melifaro wrote:

Ping :-)
I'd love to get rid of if_clone_advanced() before 14 and cxgbe is the only remaining user :-)

Almost there. Now the new ifnet is created successfully but there is an extra 0 in its name. The ifnet should have been t6nex0 and not t6nex00.

The if_name2unit call in if_clone_createif_nl -> ifc_handle_unit seems to be the problem. It is returning EINVAL because it doesn't like the 0 in "t6nex0".

I tried this change but the cloned interface was not created.

Sorry I missed this previously. This man page has a dependency on groff and I'd like to get rid of it eventually (the dependency, not the man page). But my manpage-fu is weak and I'm not sure how to figure out exactly which parts need groff. Will these proposed changes make any difference as far as reliance on groff goes? Okay to check this in either way.

I'm done looking at the cxgb part, will look at cxgbe next.

Was this done with some coccinelle type script or something similar? I have a bunch of code that is not upstream yet and it is not ifAPI style. If there's a script I could run pre-commit to make sure any new code is ifAPI clean it would be quite useful.

@brd what kind of workload do you see the improvements with?

Incorporate feedback from kib.

In D37270#846696, @kib wrote:

Should the current version number for ACS also get a symbolic name?