[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160518.211043.773402183440053556.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 21:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Cc: aduyck@...antis.com, tom@...bertland.com,
alexander.duyck@...il.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 0/2] Follow-ups for GUEoIPv6 patches
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:27:58 -0700
> On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 10:44 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> This patch series is meant to be applied after:
>> [PATCH v7 net-next 00/16] ipv6: Enable GUEoIPv6 and more fixes for v6
>> tunneling
>>
>> The first patch addresses an issue we already resolved in the GREv4 and
>> is
>> now present in GREv6 with the introduction of FOU/GUE for IPv6 based GRE
>> tunnels.
>>
>> The second patch goes through and enables IPv6 tunnel offloads for the
>> Intel
>> NICs that already support the IPv4 based IP-in-IP tunnel offloads. I
>> have
>> only done a bit of touch testing but have seen ~20 Gb/s over an i40e
>> interface using a v4-in-v6 tunnel, and I have verified IPv6 GRE is still
>> passing traffic at around the same rate. I plan to do further testing
>> but
>> with these patches present it should enable a wider audience to be able
>> to
>> test the new features introduced in Tom's patchset with hardware
>> offloads.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Alexander Duyck (2):
>> ip6_gre: Do not allow segmentation offloads GRE_CSUM is enabled
>> with FOU/GUE
>> intel: Add support for IPv6 IP-in-IP offload
>
> Dave, I have this series added to my queue.
Why would you if it depends upon Tom's series, as mentioned above, which
isn't even in my tree yet?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists