lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2 net] i40e: Implement ndo_gso_check()
From
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Joe Stringer <joestringer@nicira.com> wrote:
>>> On 21 November 2014 at 09:59, Joe Stringer <joestringer@nicira.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20 November 2014 16:19, Jesse Gross <jesse@nicira.com> wrote:
>>>>> I don't know if we need to have the check at all for IPIP though -
>>>>> after all the driver doesn't expose support for it all (actually it
>>>>> doesn't expose GRE either). This raises kind of an interesting
>>>>> question about the checks though - it's pretty easy to add support to
>>>>> the driver for a new GSO type (and I imagine that people will be
>>>>> adding GRE soon) and forget to update the check.
>>>>
>>>> If the check is more conservative, then testing would show that it's
>>>> not working and lead people to figure out why (and update the check).
>>>
>>> More concretely, one suggestion would be something like following at
>>> the start of each gso_check():
>>>
>>> + const int supported = SKB_GSO_TCPV4 | SKB_GSO_TCPV6 | SKB_GSO_FCOE |
>>> + SKB_GSO_UDP | SKB_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL;
>>> +
>>> + if (skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type & ~supported)
>>> + return false;
>>
>> This should already be handled by net_gso_ok.
>
> My original point wasn't so much that this isn't handled at the moment
> but that it's easy to add a supported GSO type but then forget to
> update this check - i.e. if a driver already supports UDP_TUNNEL and
> adds support for GRE with the same constraints. It seems not entirely
> ideal that this function is acting as a blacklist rather than a
> whitelist.

Agreed, it would be nice to have all the checking logic in one place.
If all the drivers end up implementing ndo_gso_check then we could
potentially get rid of the GSO types as features. This probably
wouldn't be a bad thing since we already know that the features
mechanism doesn't scale (for instance there's no way to indicate that
certain combinations of GSO types are supported by a device).


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-12-02 01:21    [W:0.051 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site