[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52CD0686.4090205@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:04:22 +0200
From: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
CC: Jerry Chu <hkchu@...gle.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Yan Burman <yanb@...lanox.com>,
Shlomo Pongratz <shlomop@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 1/3] net: Add GRO support for UDP encapsulating
protocols
On 07/01/2014 23:38, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 22:37 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
>> So here's the thing, per my understanding we want to GRO only received
>> **encapsulated** packets whose checksum status is != CHECKSUM_NONE
>> which means the NIC has some support for doing RX checksum of
>> encapsulated packets. Per the current convension, in that case the NIC
>> RX code has to set skb->encapsulation see 6a674e9c75b17 "net: Add
>> support for hardware-offloaded encapsulation" this convension is
>> implemented in the current drivers that have HW offloads for
>> encapsulated packets (bnx2x, i40e and mlx4)
> I do not think its true.
>
> Some drivers set CHECKSUM_COMPLETE even for regular UDP frames...
>
> git grep -n CHECKSUM_COMPLETE -- drivers/net
>
>
>
Eric, the point I was trying to make is that as long as the driver set a
value which is different from CHECKSUM_NONE
for an skb who carry encapsulated packet, we want skb->encapsulation to
be set, per the architecture dictated by the above commit.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists