On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
<han...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> very cool series!
>
> On 13.06.2016 19:48, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> index d101e4d904ba..e959b6348f91 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> @@ -1269,6 +1269,14 @@ struct net_device_ops {
>> void (*ndo_del_geneve_port)(struct net_device *dev,
>> sa_family_t sa_family,
>> __be16 port);
>> + void (*ndo_add_udp_enc_port)(struct net_device
>> *dev,
>> + sa_family_t sa_family,
>> + __be16 port,
>> + unsigned int type);
>> + void (*ndo_del_udp_enc_port)(struct net_device
>> *dev,
>> + sa_family_t sa_family,
>> + __be16 port,
>> + unsigned int type);
>> void* (*ndo_dfwd_add_station)(struct net_device
>> *pdev,
>> struct net_device
>> *dev);
>> void (*ndo_dfwd_del_station)(struct net_device
>> *pdev,
>
> What do you think about adding a struct as argument to
> ndo_*_udp_enc_port? As a result we can much easier add new fields in
> case future NICs allow us to e.g. specify a bound ip address?
>
This is why I think we should be using ntuple filtering for
encapsulation instead perpetuating the notion that encapsulation
offload can only be done based on receive ports.
Tom
> Thanks,
> Hannes
>
