Monday, June 25, 2018 2:33 PM, Nélio Laranjeiro: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5: separate generic tunnel TSO from the > standard one > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:23:22AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote: > > Monday, June 25, 2018 9:41 AM , Nélio Laranjeiro: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5: separate generic tunnel TSO from the > > > standard one > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 09:22:26AM +0300, Shahaf Shuler wrote: > > > > The generic tunnel TSO was depended in the regular one > > > > capabilities to be enabled. > > > > > > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com> > > > > Acked-by: Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txq.c | 13 +++++++++---- > > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > - txq_ctrl->txq.tunnel_en = config->tunnel_en; > > > > + txq_ctrl->txq.tunnel_en = config->tunnel_en | config->swp; > > > > txq_ctrl->txq.swp_en = ((DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IP_TNL_TSO | > > > > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_TNL_TSO | > > > > DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_OUTER_IPV4_CKSUM) & > > > > -- > > > > 2.12.0 > > > > > > > > > > Is not it a fix? > > > > Well, more like optimization. To be less strict on when to enable the > > generic tunnel TSO. > > I can rephrase the title if you insist. > > I was asking due to the CC'ed stable, which is generally used when the it is a > fix. I don't know how the stable maintainers trigger such patch, that why I > am asking. > > I am not insisting in any thing here. > > By the way: > Acked-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>
Applied to next-net-mlx, thanks. > > -- > Nélio Laranjeiro > 6WIND
