Messages in this thread | | | From | "Vick, Matthew" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net 3/5] fm10k: Implement ndo_gso_check() | Date | Fri, 7 Nov 2014 19:49:38 +0000 |
| |
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
| |