Hi Rao,

Thank you for your answer!

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@oracle.com> wrote:
On 03/21/2018 06:34 AM, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
To be honest, I was also thinking about submitting a proposal for either a talk or a workshop.
I also think it would be very interesting to join forces. It is maybe in my genes to propose that because the motto of my country is "Unity makes Strength" but I really think that it could help to have one single presentation about that. Note that in my country, we usually use this motto when we need to drink all available beers but that's something else :)
If we did not want to co-operate we would not be sharing the code and asking for input. The reason I proposed individual submission is because it was claimed that going to the community with my idea would make everyone look like a fool.

I understand why you have the impression that you have. In private emails I have raised that concern that the comments should be kept professional and technical. If someone has a non technical issue they are welcome to contact me privately.

BTW I am a big Warriors (Basket Ball Team) fan and their slogan is -- Strength in Numbers

Sorry I was not clear, indeed we are co-operating in term of sharing code and info.

I also understand why Christoph and Mat were not more supportive regarding your patch-set after their previous submission (TCP options framework).

From my point of view, I am fine to try to get more info using different names if it is needed. I am very glad to see that you first asked some questions and you got answers from NetDev maintainer!
I don't think I am wrong to say that we all want to upstream MPTCP without having to rework all the current implementation. Like you, our main concern is to adapt both TCP and MPTCP stacks to fit with NetDev maintainer's expectations. These expectations are not always clear and we agree that NetDevConf is a very good place to discuss about that.
Yup. The RFC patch is intended to do exactly that. When I talked to David and Eric about how they want MPTCP implemented, they wanted to see an implementation as a starting point. We produced one as no one else was working on it. However, it was summarily dismissed. The comments make it obvious that no one looked deeper.

I understand these guys would prefer to see code to comment it. But I don't know how to produce a very small version of MPTCP implementation. If it is not small, it seems it is very hard to get very interesting comments about implementation details.

So indeed, it seems we have to produce code just to get comments. So what you are doing seems totally good :-)

But I guess the message that was shared on this ML is that we need to be careful not to irritate NetDev community. We need to broach the subject of indirect function calls cautiously. I understand that after the previous reject regarding the TCP options framework, it was difficult to see a bunch of new callbacks in TCP. So that was good to see your question regarding this topic on NetDev ML before sending patches!

Is okay for you to summarise these answers by saying that: NetDev community doesn't want a lot of new indirect function calls but they don't have alternatives (yet) and we need them to have a clean MPTCP implementation.
The good thing is that they are certainly looking at alternatives as well and when a good one will be found, we can switch to this new solution. So they will not reject patches just because there are new abstractions, right?
 
So we have the same goal. I just do not have the illusion that I know what David Miller wants plus I am not afraid to ask. I also start out small and not just jump to pie in the sky ideas. We have no expectation that the patch will be accepted, but even it's rejection will provide invaluable information just like my recent questions have.

That's good to have someone who asks! And we need more info!
From my point of view, it would be possible and even better to propose two or more different ideas to make progress on this project of upstreaming MPTCP. But presenting them together will certainly indicate that we have different ideas to achieve our unique goal.
What do you think about that?
I am very happy to co-ordinate with you and work jointly with the team.
In fact I am happy to have someone else do the talk. I am also willing to put aside the patch if genuine technical issues are raised that can be validated independently.

I am very happy too!

Feel free to come to our weekly meetings today to discuss about these technical topics :)

Cheers,
Matthieu
--
Tessares SAMatthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
matthieu.baerts@tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net 
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium



DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.