[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YmS2Gd6c1b+o5nyR@Laptop-X1>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 10:29:45 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Balazs Nemeth <bnemeth@...hat.com>,
Mike Pattrick <mpattric@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/af_packet: add VLAN support for AF_PACKET
SOCK_RAW GSO
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 05:39:48PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > If we split skb_probe_transport_header() from packet_parse_headers() and
> > move it before calling virtio_net_hdr_* function in packet_snd(). Should
> > we do the same for tpacket_snd(), i.e. move skb_probe_transport_header()
> > after the virtio_net_hdr_* function?
>
> That sounds like the inverse: "move after" instead of "move before"?
That's for "split packet_parse_headers()" option.
>
> But I thought the plan was to go back to your last patch which brings
> packet_snd in line with tpacket_snd by moving packet_parse_headers in
> its entirety before virtio_net_hdr_*?
Yes, exactly.
> > So my conclusion is. There is no need to split packet_parse_headers(). Move
> > packet_parse_headers() before calling virtio_net_hdr_* function in packet_snd()
> > should be safe.
>
> Ack. Sorry if my last response was not entirely clear on this point.
Thanks a lot for your review. Do you think if I need to re-post the patch?
Or will you give an Acked-by for this one?
Hangbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists