> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 2:30 PM
> To: Chia-Yu Chang (Nokia) <chia-yu.chang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; corbet@xxxxxxx; horms@xxxxxxxxxx; dsahern@xxxxxxxxxx; kuniyu@xxxxxxxxxx; bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dave.taht@xxxxxxxxx; jhs@xxxxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx; jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; andrew+netdev@xxxxxxx; donald.hunter@xxxxxxxxx; ast@xxxxxxxxxxx; liuhangbin@xxxxxxxxx; shuah@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ij@xxxxxxxxxx; ncardwell@xxxxxxxxxx; Koen De Schepper (Nokia) <koen.de_schepper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; g.white@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ingemar.s.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; mirja.kuehlewind@xxxxxxxxxxxx; cheshire@xxxxxxxxx; rs.ietf@xxxxxx; Jason_Livingood@xxxxxxxxxxx; vidhi_goel@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 net-next 10/14] tcp: accecn: AccECN option
>
>
> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 1:40 AM <chia-yu.chang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > /* Used for make_synack to form the ACE flags */ diff --git
> > a/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h b/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h index
> > bdac8c42fa82..53e0e85b52be 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h
> > @@ -316,6 +316,13 @@ struct tcp_info {
> > * in milliseconds, including any
> > * unfinished recovery.
> > */
> > + __u32 tcpi_received_ce; /* # of CE marks received */
> > + __u32 tcpi_delivered_e1_bytes; /* Accurate ECN byte counters */
> > + __u32 tcpi_delivered_e0_bytes;
> > + __u32 tcpi_delivered_ce_bytes;
> > + __u32 tcpi_received_e1_bytes;
> > + __u32 tcpi_received_e0_bytes;
> > + __u32 tcpi_received_ce_bytes;
> > };
> >
>
> We do not add more fields to tcp_info, unless added fields are a multiple of 64 bits.
>
> Otherwise a hole is added and can not be recovered.
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the feedback.
Then, would it make sense to add __u32 reserved; here or this is not an option?
Chia-Yu
