On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:58:32PM +0000, Vick, Matthew wrote: > On 11/5/14, 11:36 AM, "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com> wrote: > > >On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 10:26 -0800, Joe Stringer wrote: > >> On 5 November 2014 04:47, Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com> > >>wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 14:44 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > >> > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jeff Kirsher > >> > > <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > > > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 13:56 -0800, Joe Stringer wrote: > >> > > >> ndo_gso_check() was recently introduced to allow NICs to report > >>the > >> > > >> offloading support that they have on a per-skb basis. Add an > >> > > >> implementation for this driver which checks for something that > >>looks > >> > > >> like VXLAN. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Implementation shamelessly stolen from Tom Herbert: > >> > > >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/332428/focus=333111 > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> > >> > > >> --- > >> > > >> Should this driver report support for GSO on packets with tunnel > >> > > >> headers > >> > > >> up to 64B like the i40e driver does? > >> > > >> --- > >> > > >> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_netdev.c | 12 > >>++++++++++++ > >> > > >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks Joe, I will add your patch to my queue. > >> > > > >> > > Hi Jeff, please see my comment on patch 0/5, we're essentially > >> > > replicating the same helper four different times (fm10k, mlx4, > >>benet, > >> > > qlgc) - I don't see the point in doing so. I asked Joe to come up > >>with > >> > > one generic helper and then to pick it up by the four drivers, makes > >> > > sense? > >> > > >> > Yeah, I just saw your reply Or. Ok, I will await an update to Joe's > >> > series, thanks! > >> > >> Thanks Or/Jeff. > >> > >> There is also the question in the commit message above, perhaps fm10k > >> support is a bit different - wasn't sure who to ask regarding that. > > > >Matthew Vick is the fm10k maintainer now and can answer any fm10k > >questions you may have. > > Hi Joe, fm10k's hardware is pretty lax about the header size. As long as > the total header length (outer+inner) is 184 bytes or less we're golden, > so if I'm not mistaken that leaves us with a max of 130 bytes beyond the > tunnel header.
Oh, okay. To be more explicit, in the case of UDP tunnels I take it that you're talking about L2+L3+(L4+)tunnel+L2+L3+L4 <= 184? (L4 perhaps optional depending on the tunnel protocol used) In that case, the fm10k_gso_check would use something closer to "skb_inner_transport_header(skb) - skb_mac_header(skb) > 184", or perhaps 164 to allow for inner L4 header (?). Joe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/