On 02/05/15 at 07:53pm, Pravin Shelar wrote: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote: > >> Since it should be possible to configure vxlan tunnel with only > >> REMCSUM_RX or only REMCSUM_TX, I do not think we can store REMCSUM_TX > >> in global vport, anyways I do not want to discuss details here. tunnel > >> parameter are part of tunnel action. Thats why we should not make it > >> part of vxlan-vport. > > > > I think this is somewhat problematic because these options affect the > > interpretation of bits on receive. They're all stomping on top of each > > other and there is no way to know what to do unless you are told (and > > the kernel needs to know in this case to handle the checksum on a > > per-packet basis). > > > OK, that is unfortunate as it does not allow vxlan port sharing and we > need to keep flags in vxlan vport.
Right. We need to disallow sharing of the datapath VXLAN port if the extensions are not compatible. I promised Jesse to fix this in the upstream tree next before introducing RCO support. > > We should also think about how to apply this in a consistent manner to > > other protocols that don't have this issue like Geneve. As a general remark. We need to decide which tree we want to work on. We cannot constantly diverge the upstream and downstream tree. I'm fine to change anything but I think we should change it upstream first and always do straight backports to the OVS tree. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
