From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [net PATCH] gro: Allow tunnel stacking in the case of FOU/GUE Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:03:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20160329.170348.883731618823989561.davem@davemloft.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: aduyck@mirantis.com, alexander.duyck@gmail.com, jesse@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: tom@herbertland.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:44530 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758149AbcC2VDv (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:03:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Tom Herbert Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:51:17 -0700 > No, but I do expect that you support code that is already there. There > was apparently zero testing done on the original patch and it caused > one very obvious regression. So how can we have any confidence > whatsoever that this patch doesn't break other things? Furthermore, > with all these claims of bugs I still don't see that _anyone_ has > taken the time to reproduce any issue and show that this patch > materially fixes any thing. I seriously don't understand how basic > testing could be such a challenge. > > Anyway, what I expect is moot. It's up to davem to decide what to do > with this... You being upset with a lack of testing is one issue, and is legitimate. But the fact that we can't support, and never could support, more than one network header at a time except in a very special case for GRO is very real. And you must acknowledge that this was a very shaky foundation upon which to erect the kinds of things you expect to work.