On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch> wrote:
> 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.
Ah, sorry. I see that vx_vni is 4 bytes instead of 3 bytes of the
actual VNI. I agree that the whole header is covered for GRO purposes.
The definition of the VNI field is a little confusing but I guess it's
more efficient than the alternative.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
