On Jul 2, 2013, at 1:28 , ext Pravin B Shelar wrote:

> diff --git a/datapath/linux/compat/include/net/vxlan.h 
> b/datapath/linux/compat/include/net/vxlan.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..76e0ddb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/datapath/linux/compat/include/net/vxlan.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> +#ifndef __NET_VXLAN_WRAPPER_H
> +#define __NET_VXLAN_WRAPPER_H  1
> +
> +#include <linux/skbuff.h>
> +#include <linux/netdevice.h>
> +#include <linux/udp.h>
> +
> +/* per UDP socket information */
> +struct vxlan_sock {
> +     struct hlist_node hlist;
> +     struct rcu_head   rcu;
> +     struct socket     *sock;
> +     struct list_head  handler_list;
> +};
> +
> +struct vxlan_handler;
> +typedef int (vxlan_rcv_t)(struct vxlan_handler *vh, struct sk_buff *skb, 
> __be32 key);
> +
> +struct vxlan_handler {
> +     vxlan_rcv_t       *rcv;
> +     struct list_head   node;
> +     void              *data;
> +     struct vxlan_sock *vs;
> +     atomic_t           refcnt;
> +     struct rcu_head    rcu;
> +     struct work_struct del_work;
> +     int                priority;
> +};
> +
> +void vxlan_handler_put(struct vxlan_handler *vh);
> +
> +struct vxlan_handler *vxlan_handler_add(struct net *net,
> +                                     __be16 portno, vxlan_rcv_t *rcv,
> +                                     void *data, int priority);
> +
> +int vxlan_xmit_skb(struct net *net, struct vxlan_handler *vh,
> +                struct rtable *rt, struct sk_buff *skb,
> +                __be32 src, __be32 dst, __u8 tos, __u8 ttl, __be16 df,
> +                __be16 src_port, __be16 dst_port, __be32 vni);
> +
> +__be16 vxlan_src_port(__u16 port_min, __u16 port_max, struct sk_buff *skb);
> +
> +#endif

I may sound like a broken record here, but is there a reason to keep all of the 
above somehow vxlan specific? It seems to me these same facilities could be 
used for other UDP-based tunneling protocols as well. I get that this is compat 
code, but you also said that the upstream code is not yet there either, so 
maybe there is a chance to reconsider this now? Or is it better to refactor the 
code when more UDP-based tunneling protocols are upstreamed?

 Jarno

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to