[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250819173005.6b560779@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 17:30:05 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Richard Gobert <richardbgobert@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
horms@...nel.org, corbet@....net, shenjian15@...wei.com,
salil.mehta@...wei.com, shaojijie@...wei.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
saeedm@...dia.com, tariqt@...dia.com, mbloch@...dia.com, leon@...nel.org,
ecree.xilinx@...il.com, dsahern@...nel.org, ncardwell@...gle.com,
kuniyu@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me, ahmed.zaki@...el.com,
aleksander.lobakin@...el.com, florian.fainelli@...adcom.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/5] net: gro: only merge packets with
incrementing or fixed outer ids
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 10:46:01 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> It's a bit unclear what the meaning of inner and outer are in the
> unencapsulated (i.e., normal) case. In my intuition outer only exists
> if encapsulated, but it seems you reason the other way around: inner
> is absent unless encapsulated.
+1, whether the header in unencapsulted packet is inner or outer
is always a source of unnecessary confusion. I would have also
preferred your suggestion on v1 to use _ENCAP in the name.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists