On 14-08-26 05:56 AM, jianchuan.w...@windriver.com wrote:
Summary: GRE Refresh
Tech Review: Yang Shi
Gatekeeper: Bruce Ashfield
Lockdown Approval (if needed):
Branch Tag: master for WRL 7
IP Statement (form link or license statement, usually automated):
Crypto URL(s) (if needed): see
http://wiki.wrs.com/PBUeng/LinuxProductDivisionExportProcess
Parent Template (where applicable):
-------------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
------------------- -----------
docs/tech-pubs n
tests n
build system n
host dependencies n
RPM/packaging n
toolchain n
kernel code y
user code n
configuration files n
target configuration n
Other n
Applicable to Yocto/upstream n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
0001-gre-add-x-netns-support.patch
This patch allows to switch the netns when packet is encapsulated or
decapsulated. In other word, the encapsulated packet is received in a
netns,
where the lookup is done to find the tunnel. Once the tunnel is found,
the
packet is decapsulated and injecting into the corresponding interface
which
stands to another netns.
0002-gre-allow-changing-mac-address-when-device-is-up.patch
There is no need to require forcing device down on a Ethernet GRE
(gretap)
tunnel to change the MAC address.
0003-ip6gre-add-x-netns-support.patch
This patch allows to switch the netns when packet is encapsulated or
decapsulated. In other word, the encapsulated packet is received in a
netns,
where the lookup is done to find the tunnel. Once the tunnel is found,
the
packet is decapsulated and injecting into the corresponding interface
which
stands to another netns.
0004-net-Generalize-checksum_init-functions.patch
Create a general __skb_checksum_validate function (actually a
macro) to subsume the various checksum_init functions. This
function can either init the checksum, or do the full validation
(logically checksum_init+skb_check_complete)-- a flag specifies
if full vaidation is performed. Also, there is a flag to the function
to indicate that zero checksums are allowed (to support optional
UDP checksums).
0005-gre6-Call-skb_checksum_simple_validate.patch
Use skb_checksum_simple_validate to verify checksum.
0001-GRE-enable-gre-feature.patch
GRE: enable gre feature
Added Files:
------------
None
Removed Files:
--------------
None
Remaining Changes (diffstat):
-----------------------------
include/linux/skbuff.h | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
net/ipv4/ip_gre.c | 7 ++++---
net/ipv6/ip6_gre.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
3 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Testing gre both ipv4 and ipv6.
Node A: 128.224.165.109
Node B: 128.224.165.126
The node A and node B configures For IPV4 as flows:
node A:
ip tunnel add grem mode gre remote 128.224.165.126 local
128.224.165.109 ttl 255
ip link set grem up
ip addr add 10.10.10.1/24 dev grem
node B:
ip tunnel add grem mode gre remote 128.224.165.109 local
128.224.165.126 ttl 255
ip link set grem up
ip addr add 10.10.10.2/24 dev grem
The node A and node B configures For IPV6 as flows:
node A:
ip tunnel add sixbone mode sit remote 128.224.165.126 local
128.224.165.109 ttl 255
ip link set sixbone up
ip addr add 3ffe:406:5:1:5:a:2:1/96 dev sixbone
#ip route add 3ffe::/15 dev sixbone
node B:
ip tunnel add sixbone mode sit remote 128.224.165.109 local
128.224.165.126 ttl 255
ip link set sixbone up
ip addr add 3ffe:406:5:1:5:a:2:2/96 dev sixbone
#ip route add 3ffe::/15 dev sixbone
gk
Bruce
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
After configuring sucessfully, ping each other is ok.
Conditions of submission:
-------------------------
Arch built boot boardname
-------------------------------------
MIPS n n
MIPS64 n n
MIPS64n32 n n
ARM n n
x86 n n
x86_64 y y intel-xeon-core
PPC n n
PPC64 n n
SPARC64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review/gatekeep because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You've not properly listed things in the proper sections from
the perspective of the SCM for new, removed, and changed files
___ You have failed to nominate a proper person for gatekeep or review.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ Your patches have timestamps and/or index lines
___ You have failed to put in a proper CQID into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put internal data like CQID commits into
customer visible files (things shipped directly as patches etc).
___ Your "Signed-off-by:" is either missing or invalid
___ You have not built for enough appropriate architecture families,
and/or you've chosen an arch family that is guaranteed to succeed.
___ You've included large amounts of useless and irrelevant diffstat
information.
___ You've included binary files in your RR which appear as a large
number of lines of useless "uuencode" information.
___ You have changed a host tool and not tested on enough supported hosts.
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have carried forward some ancient/meaningless internal WRS CVS
tags (i.e. $Id$) in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have not clearly specified the origin of some/all of your added
content (i.e. patches from a mailing list, a git tree, done internally?)
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have dropped patches that were used on the old pkg version
without clearly justifying why they are no longer needed.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have added a new package, but not indicated that the package
addition matches the Makefile template specified by the Userspace group
-----------
Original of this form hosted at:
http://git.wrs.com/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/bin/tree/etc/review.txt
--
_______________________________________________
linux-yocto mailing list
linux-yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/linux-yocto
