From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Vick, Matthew" Subject: Re: [PATCH net 3/5] fm10k: Implement ndo_gso_check() Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 19:49:38 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1415138202-1197-1-git-send-email-joestringer@nicira.com> <20141106211522.GA55313@gmail.com> <201411071805.18119.joestringer@nicira.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: "alexander.duyck@gmail.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "Dept-GELinuxNICDev@qlogic.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "sathya.perla@emulex.com" , "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" , Linux NICS , "amirv@mellanox.com" , "shahed.shaikh@qlogic.com" , "therbert@google.com" , "Or Gerlitz" To: Joe Stringer Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201411071805.18119.joestringer@nicira.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <8E06E28C207F6F4E9947B547F6FCFBF5@intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 11/6/14, 9:05 PM, "Joe Stringer" 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