From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b8-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b8-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16B9C350D52 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 10:28:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.151 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761820122; cv=none; b=S2tKmWdnl/JlmeoNBaGQQTVdgJZNWTDRqQfJ5gcEEc73/SUZkLlajnUwS5grfKVPCfBeo97E+gXBWt82HcdW7XnnBia/GYoIKlu97iUdqgKA0jUPCw9p2Pgc6rdCFTn6Usj/0VpnJacrX3UYtlouUcVsdm+r9PPxLXc+fifIryk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761820122; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0/baVWMxFoAo/Ib95gC0lBZ45HRVyqvAZbY/K71GKk0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=e09I3kqBYz+Ka6CR4OgCfd8fbkbP8LIDWlN0WE/hPqUf+wddHUjTxqvir/d3Qqas5WZNVjOQB/Jpz5BCFmqpQ7MUN5UCGxAuzHqaZV13hmTWaA0VEJCnNvA2ku6q1SQz0WF3lKIXtTNIS/OSLHeTNfIz3QHkRww9ITI7EUdZFQA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b=IGUOwze7; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=RGqch72S; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.151 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b="IGUOwze7"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="RGqch72S" Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC26A1D0018C; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 06:28:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 30 Oct 2025 06:28:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=queasysnail.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1761820117; x= 1761906517; bh=pv3kIQ2je0JxNKKQubVH5mPhZIsYYqq5229K/Th1UN8=; b=I GUOwze75oK88VMJczvny8YRTIqd4p0raiiywhcuzOs5jGEkioPeCor/Nc/mSSrcI YxSMXKF2tHJc+0RI8u5pv+aHO4H6gLdFnKHqeCK5GRgZIFZ3i/WUIHzrBNw5QCiQ 30ZrC5cd2qDchmQRxVWQiMbFQ4iYpknlcTQrEfhJV2HZqpxFvxkgLR7tTBIhzcsb dbQce5hVj2xNSSKkacE0FtLVRaCoKZxnpCmgEkrgM/cE/uOBiA9XdXRfFNnSVN8l boK3/fRgGwu+Be4B1w21QE14YTBQawkNzFO/HkuYXvknA1FdGd0DQfFfSPyUz7/L /tj2fcfNNw/v/OSWGeEcQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1761820117; x=1761906517; bh=pv3kIQ2je0JxNKKQubVH5mPhZIsYYqq5229 K/Th1UN8=; b=RGqch72SMmum/KbE8hS5aknTDxEI5caW70xQNOIPHkfgClo6ovZ waYQi9z4cpHEF0XBm3ueN73EV7GTbDatbwklWSI/G2lJftadRPPxwirvmgjPcNlv mBe3GBXRzqq3M7005APRDKrK2WUMRKU+o7Nw+2Wq0icXevg0517xn9zHMcVBkZ/Q mFBJA4Gahh8xJwgdagd1nfQKvPs37l2jtNsChdR1EiKG7ktBIA7wHHolrjh17Rlc Z/jsbcLRCk3/6sz3rlLh+Q4DcRG1n1Igho/CbbbqeJ8HK+bjkqPJMyv71fVmmHe4 5qLAOrCeIXc61jwqigfhzbvtWjYMbn0dJKw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggdduieeifeejucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepufgrsghrihhn rgcuffhusghrohgtrgcuoehsugesqhhuvggrshihshhnrghilhdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnhepuefhhfffgfffhfefueeiudegtdefhfekgeetheegheeifffguedvueff fefgudffnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epshgusehquhgvrghshihsnhgrihhlrdhnvghtpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeduuddpmhho uggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepshhtvghffhgvnhdrkhhlrghsshgvrhhtse hsvggtuhhnvghtrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhirghnsgholhesnhhvihguihgrrdgt ohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepnhgvthguvghvsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtg hpthhtohepuggrvhgvmhesuggrvhgvmhhlohhfthdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehkuhgs rgeskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoheptghrrghtihhusehnvhhiughirgdrtg homhdprhgtphhtthhopehhvghrsggvrhhtsehgohhnughorhdrrghprghnrgdrohhrghdr rghupdhrtghpthhtohepvgguuhhmrgiivghtsehgohhoghhlvgdrtghomhdprhgtphhtth hopehprggsvghnihesrhgvughhrghtrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i934648bf:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 06:28:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 11:28:34 +0100 From: Sabrina Dubroca To: Steffen Klassert Cc: Jianbo Liu , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, Cosmin Ratiu , Herbert Xu , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , David Ahern Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec v3 2/2] xfrm: Determine inner GSO type from packet inner protocol Message-ID: References: <20251028023013.9836-1-jianbol@nvidia.com> <20251028023013.9836-3-jianbol@nvidia.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 2025-10-30, 09:08:11 +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 04:04:36PM +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > 2025-10-28, 21:36:17 +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote: > > > > > > My proposed plan is: > > > > > > Send the patch 1 and patch 3 (including the xfrm_ip2inner_mode change) > > > together to the ipsec tree. They are self-contained fixes. > > > > So, keep v3 of this series unchanged. > > > > > Separately, after those are accepted, I can modify and re-submit that patch > > > [1] to ipsec-next that removes the now-redundant checks from the other > > > callers (VTI, etc.), leveraging the updated helper function. > > > > > > This way, the critical fixes are self-contained and backportable, while the > > > cleanup of other callers happens later in the development cycle. > > > > The only (small) drawback is leaving the duplicate code checking > > AF_UNSPEC in the existing callers of xfrm_ip2inner_mode, but I guess > > that's ok. > > > > > > Steffen, is it ok for you to > > > > - have a duplicate AF_UNSPEC check in callers of xfrm_ip2inner_mode > > (the existing "default to x->inner_mode, call xfrm_ip2inner_mode if > > AF_UNSPEC", and the new one added to xfrm_ip2inner_mode by this > > patch) in the ipsec tree and then in stable? > > > > - do the clean up (like the diff I pasted in my previous email, or > > something smaller if [1] is applied separately) in ipsec-next after > > ipsec is merged into it? > > I'm OK with this, I can take v3 as is. Ok. In that case, you can add: Reviewed-by: Sabrina Dubroca for both patches. Thanks. -- Sabrina