From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Stringer Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/5] Implement ndo_gso_check() for vxlan nics Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 17:06:46 -0800 Message-ID: <20141106010501.GA18339@gmail.com> References: <20141105.163825.1433973842938441546.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: gerlitz.or@gmail.com, therbert@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, sathya.perla@emulex.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, linux.nics@intel.com, amirv@mellanox.com, shahed.shaikh@qlogic.com, Dept-GELinuxNICDev@qlogic.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141105.163825.1433973842938441546.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:38:25PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Or Gerlitz > Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 23:32:44 +0200 > > > but fact is that the proposed patch series has the --same-- helper for > > four drivers, so why not start with a that limited helper which would > > be picked up by these drivers and we'll take it from there. > > I'm in favor of the helper, duplication is error prone. > > And in fact, any differences a driver ends up needing might be > integratable into the helper. My impression was that the changes are more likely to be hardware-specific (like the i40e changes) rather than software-specific, like changes that might be integrated into the helper. That said, I can rework for one helper. The way I see it would be the same code as these patches, as "vxlan_gso_check(struct sk_buff *)" in drivers/net/vxlan.c which would be called from each driver. Is that what you had in mind?