[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <D08A8E37.5FC83%matthew.vick@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:41:03 +0000
From: "Vick, Matthew" <matthew.vick@...el.com>
To: Joe Stringer <joestringer@...ira.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Linux NICS <Linux-nics@...tope.jf.intel.com>,
"therbert@...gle.com" <therbert@...gle.com>,
"gerlitz.or@...il.com" <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
"alexander.duyck@...il.com" <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net 1/2] fm10k: Check tunnel header length in encap
offload
On 11/13/14, 3:36 PM, "Joe Stringer" <joestringer@...ira.com> wrote:
>fm10k supports up to 184 bytes of inner+outer headers. Add an initial
>check to fail encap offload if these are too large.
>
>Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joestringer@...ira.com>
>---
>Matthew, I didn't see the equivalent patch on netdev so I went ahead and
>created it. If I've missed this somewhere, then please disregard.
>
>v2: First post.
You didn't miss it Joe--it just hasn't made it up yet. :) It's currently
in Jeff's tree for testing. You're on the CC for the patch, so you'll get
a notification once it goes up. It's basically the same as what you have,
except the #define I use is 184 and I use inner_tcp_hdrlen() to account
for the inner TCP header length.
Since your second patch should apply cleanly on top of mine, what do you
think about dropping the first patch in this series and Jeff can send our
two patches up together once they've passed testing?
Cheers,
Matthew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists