[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6532d200c080d_28a354294e8@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:16:16 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Aya Levin <ayal@...dia.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...udflare.com, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Alexander H Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/3] ipv6: refactor ip6_finish_output for GSO
handling
Yan Zhai wrote:
> Separate GSO and non-GSO packets handling to make the logic cleaner. For
> GSO packets, frag_max_size check can be omitted because it is only
> useful for packets defragmented by netfilter hooks. Both local output
> and GRO logic won't produce GSO packets when defragment is needed. This
> also mirrors what IPv4 side code is doing.
>
> Suggested-by: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> Signed-off-by: Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>
Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Thanks for splitting up the series. This change alone is subtle enough
that it benefits from standing alone. I thought it was intended to be
a NOOP, but you indeed call out the frag_max_size special case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists