On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 04:03:21PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 02:00:19PM -0700, Joseph Gasparakis wrote: > >> Any particular reason to introduce skb->encapsulation_features instead of > >> using the existing skb->encapsulation? Also I don't see it used in your > >> second patch either. > > > > My reasoning is that skb->encapsulation seems to alter the behaviour of > > many different locations and I'm not sure that any of them, other than the > > one in dev_hard_start_xmit() make sense for MPLS. > > The problem is the meaning of skb->encapsulation isn't really defined > clearly and I'm certain that the current implementation is not going > to work in the future. Depending on your perspective, vlans, MPLS, > tunnels, etc. can all be considered forms of encapsulation but clearly > there are many NICs that have different capabilities across those. I > believe the intention here was really to describe L3 tunnels as > encapsulation, in which case MPLS really shouldn't be using this > mechanism at all. > > Now there is some overlap, especially today since most currently > shipping silicon wasn't designed to support tunnels and so is using > some form of offset based offloads. In that case, all forms of > encapsulation are pretty similar. However, in the future that won't be > the case as support for specific protocols is implemented for higher > performance and richer support. When that happens, not only will MPLS > and tunnels have different capabilities but various forms tunnels > might as well.
Wouldn't be possible to describe those differences using, dev->hw_enc_features? I assumed that was its purpose. The intention of my patch was allow MPLS to utilise dev->hw_enc_features without any of the other implications of skb->encapsulation. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
