lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net 3/5] fm10k: Implement ndo_gso_check()
Date
On 11/6/14, 9:05 PM, "Joe Stringer" <joestringer@nicira.com> wrote:

>Let's merge both discussions into one thread (pick here or there). We
>have
>this suggestion or the one which simply checks for tunnels and
>inner+outer
>header lengths. Do you have a preference between them?

Agreed with merging the thread--consider it merged!

Reflecting on this some more, I prefer the latter option (checking tunnels
and header lengths). I'm leaning towards pushing the header length check
into fm10k_tx_encap_offload and then making fm10k_gso_check call that with
the gso_type. So, it's really the most recent version of the patch you
proposed:

static bool fm10k_gso_check(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
{
if ((skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type & (SKB_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL | SKB_GSO_GRE)) &&
!fm10k_tx_encap_offload(skb))
return false;

return true;
}


plus the header length being checked in fm10k_tx_encap_offload. The only
nit would be that I'd just return the conditional instead of having
"return true" or "return false" lines.

The tunnel length check really should be there in fm10k_tx_encap_offload
anyway, so I'll get a patch together for that one.

>We could introduce an "skb_is_gso_encap()" or similar for this purpose.
>Checking for SKB_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL or SKB_GSO_GRE is pretty closely tied to
>what
>fm10k_tx_encap_offload() checks for though; it might not even make sense
>to call
>it if some of the other SKB_GSO_* flags are raised.

A fair point. On the other hand, we have to check the header length both
in the GSO and non-GSO cases anyway, so only having the check in
fm10k_tx_encap_offload and calling it from fm10k_gso_check wouldn't be as
duplicative. What do you think about that approach?

As an aside: the more I think about this, the more I think Tom's right and
that each driver really should have it's own ndo_gso_check() for this.
With fm10k and i40e being different, we're already at 40% of the current
drivers being different. I'll leave it to Or to comment on whether the
other drivers could share the check in some manner.

Cheers,
Matthew



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-07 21:01    [W:0.069 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site