On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Willem de Bruijn <will...@google.com>
>
> Virtual devices such as tunnels and bonding can handle large packets.
> Only segment packets when reaching a physical or loopback device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <will...@google.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/netdev_features.h | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/netdev_features.h b/include/linux/netdev_features.h
> index 35b79f47a13d..1e4883bb02a7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/netdev_features.h
> +++ b/include/linux/netdev_features.h
> @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ enum {
>
>         NETIF_F_GRO_HW_BIT,             /* Hardware Generic receive offload */
>         NETIF_F_HW_TLS_RECORD_BIT,      /* Offload TLS record */
> +       NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4_BIT,         /* UDP payload GSO (not UFO) */

Please add an entry for the new flag to
net/core/ethtool.c:netdev_features_strings
and a description to Documentation/networking/netdev-features.txt.

>
>         /*
>          * Add your fresh new feature above and remember to update
> @@ -147,6 +148,7 @@ enum {
>  #define NETIF_F_HW_ESP_TX_CSUM __NETIF_F(HW_ESP_TX_CSUM)
>  #define        NETIF_F_RX_UDP_TUNNEL_PORT  __NETIF_F(RX_UDP_TUNNEL_PORT)
>  #define NETIF_F_HW_TLS_RECORD  __NETIF_F(HW_TLS_RECORD)
> +#define NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4     __NETIF_F(GSO_UDP_L4)
>
>  #define for_each_netdev_feature(mask_addr, bit)        \
>         for_each_set_bit(bit, (unsigned long *)mask_addr, 
> NETDEV_FEATURE_COUNT)
> @@ -216,6 +218,7 @@ enum {
>                                  NETIF_F_GSO_GRE_CSUM |                 \
>                                  NETIF_F_GSO_IPXIP4 |                   \
>                                  NETIF_F_GSO_IPXIP6 |                   \
> +                                NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 |                   \
>                                  NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL |               \
>                                  NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM)
>
> --
> 2.17.0.484.g0c8726318c-goog
>

Reply via email to