[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231018104015.42b2465b@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:40:15 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>
Cc: takeru hayasaka <hayatake396@...il.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
osmocom-net-gprs@...ts.osmocom.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ethtool: ice: Support for RSS settings to
GTP from ethtool
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:12:44 +0200 Harald Welte wrote:
> > If we were to propose again, setting aside considerations specific to
> > Intel, I believe, considering the users of ethtool, the smallest units
> > should be gtpu4|6 and gtpc4|6.
>
> agreed. Though I'm not entirely sure one would usually want to treat v4
> different from v6. I'd assume they would usually both follow the same
> RSS scheme?
FWIW I had the same thought. But if we do add flow matching
support for GTP one day we'll have to define a struct like
struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec, which means size of the address
matters?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists