On 01/12/15 at 02:50pm, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch> wrote:
> > On 01/12/15 at 11:23am, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch> wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/vxlan.c b/drivers/net/vxlan.c
> >> > index 4d52aa9..b148739 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/net/vxlan.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/net/vxlan.c
> >> > @@ -568,7 +569,8 @@ static struct sk_buff **vxlan_gro_receive(struct
> >> > sk_buff **head, struct sk_buff
> >> > continue;
> >> >
> >> > vh2 = (struct vxlanhdr *)(p->data + off_vx);
> >> > - if (vh->vx_vni != vh2->vx_vni) {
> >> > + if (vh->vx_flags != vh2->vx_flags ||
> >> > + vh->vx_vni != vh2->vx_vni) {
> >>
> >> It's probably better to do a memcmp over the entire header. There's no
> >> guarantee that new fields will be entirely represented by flags.
> >
> > vx_flags covers the entire first 32 bit of vxlanhdr so it's
> > equivalent to a memcmp() already. I can change it to memcmp() if
> > you think that's more readable.
>
> I was actually referring to the reserved 8 bit chunk after the VNI.
> This could potentially be used for something in the future.
Shouldn't that be covered by vh->vx_vni != vh2->vx_vni? I may
still misunderstand, sorry.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
