[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200906114153.7dccce5d@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 11:41:53 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Huazhong Tan <tanhuazhong@...wei.com>
Cc: <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
<yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: two updates related to UDP GSO
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 14:11:11 +0800 Huazhong Tan wrote:
> There are two updates relates to UDP GSO.
> #1 adds a new GSO type for UDPv6
> #2 adds check for UDP GSO when csum is disable in netdev_fix_features().
>
> Changes since RFC V2:
> - modifies the timing of setting UDP GSO type when doing UDP GRO in #1.
>
> Changes since RFC V1:
> - updates NETIF_F_GSO_LAST suggested by Willem de Bruijn.
> and add NETIF_F_GSO_UDPV6_L4 feature for each driver who support UDP GSO in #1.
> - add #2 who needs #1.
Please CC people who gave you feedback (Willem).
I don't feel good about this series. IPv6 is not optional any more.
AFAIU you have some issues with csum support in your device? Can you
use .ndo_features_check() to handle this?
The change in semantics of NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 from "v4 and v6" to
"just v4" can trip people over; this is not a new feature people
may be depending on the current semantics.
Willem, what are your thoughts on this?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists