From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] ipv6: Enable enough of the code to handle GSO when disabled. Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:50:36 +0100 Message-ID: <1350492636.2884.5.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com> References: <1350488802-24071-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <1350490397.26103.647.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Vlad Yasevich , , To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from webmail.solarflare.com ([12.187.104.25]:26386 "EHLO ocex02.SolarFlarecom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756468Ab2JQQuk (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:50:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1350490397.26103.647.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 18:13 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 11:46 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > > > This patch attempts to solve this by enabling just enough code so GSO > > is correctly processed. However, I should point out that if IPv6 is > > simply blacklisted or not built for the kernel, this problem will > > still persist. > > So I guess this should be done in a different way ? > > We currently use a single structure (struct packet_type) to hold > pointers to different methods. (The .func() field, and the gso/gro > stuff) > > We probably need to split it in two parts, and make one part linked into > kernel, even if CONFIG_IPV6=n, so that GRO/GSO is fully IPv4/IPv6 > functional. [...] Either that or make sure that we don't advertise IPv6 GSO when IPv6 is disabled. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.