From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/8] udp and configurable gro
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:53:51 +0200
Message-ID: <736e48946dee45db19c13c9d64f1aa21e0c8ef99.camel@redhat.com>
References: <20180914175941.213950-1-willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: steffen.klassert@secunet.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59204 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1728278AbeJEUwn (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 5 Oct 2018 16:52:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20180914175941.213950-1-willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Hi all,

On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 13:59 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> This is a *very rough* draft. Mainly for discussion while we also
> look at another partially overlapping approach [1].

I'm wondering how we go on from this ? I'm fine with either approaches.

Also, I'm interested in [try to] enable GRO/GSO batching in the
forwarding path, as you outlined initially in the GSO series
submission. That should cover Steffen use-case, too, right? 

Cheers,

Paolo