>>> Also any plans for HW offload support for this? I vaguely recall that >>> the igb and ixgbe parts had support for something like this in >>> hardware. I would have to double check to see what exactly is >>> supported. >> >> I hadn't given that much thought until the request yesterday to >> expose the NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 flag through ethtool. By >> virtue of having only a single fixed segmentation length, it >> appears reasonably straightforward to offload. > > Actually I just got a chance to start on a review of things. Do we > need to have to use both GSO_UDP and and GSO_UDP_L4? It might be > better if we could split these up and specifically call out GSO_UDP as > UFO and GSO_UDP_L4 as being UDP segmentation.
Thanks for taking a look, Alex. Agreed, I'll revise that. My initial thought was that both gso skbs need to take the same udp gso special case branches in places like act_csum and ovs. But on rereading that seems an unsafe approach, as some branches are fragmentation specific. I'll review them all and add separate SKB_GSO_UDP_L4 cases where needed, instead.
