On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:20:08 Vick, Matthew wrote: > On 11/6/14, 4:55 PM, "Joe Stringer" <joestrin...@nicira.com> wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:58:32PM +0000, Vick, Matthew wrote: > >> On 11/5/14, 11:36 AM, "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com> > >> > >>wrote: > >> Hi Joe, fm10k's hardware is pretty lax about the header size. As long as > >> the total header length (outer+inner) is 184 bytes or less we're golden, > >> so if I'm not mistaken that leaves us with a max of 130 bytes beyond the > >> tunnel header. > > > >Oh, okay. To be more explicit, in the case of UDP tunnels I take it that > >you're talking about L2+L3+(L4+)tunnel+L2+L3+L4 <= 184? (L4 perhaps > >optional depending on the tunnel protocol used) > > > >In that case, the fm10k_gso_check would use something closer to > >"skb_inner_transport_header(skb) - skb_mac_header(skb) > 184", or > >perhaps 164 to allow for inner L4 header (?). > > > >Joe > > Yes, I'm talking about the full shebang. > > I like the 164 check, personally (with appropriate #define for > readability).
Thanks for the feedback, I take it that this approach is preferable over the other one involving an skb_gso_check() + fm10k_tx_encap_offload() call? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
