On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 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.
Sounds good. Keep me in the loop on these patches. I will see if we can get support for ixgbe, ixgbevf, and igb to at least offload this since it shouldn't be much of a lift to get that. Once we have that I can also take a look and see if there would be much work needed to add gso_partial support so we could deal with tunnel encapsulated UDP segmentation offload support on those devices. Thanks. - Alex
