On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:58 PM Josh Hunt <joh...@akamai.com> wrote: > > On 6/26/19 4:41 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 3:17 PM Jason Baron <jba...@akamai.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 6/14/19 4:53 PM, Jason Baron wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 6/13/19 5:20 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > >>>>>>> @@ -237,6 +237,7 @@ static inline int find_next_netdev_feature(u64 > >>>>>>> feature, unsigned long start) > >>>>>>> NETIF_F_GSO_GRE_CSUM | > >>>>>>> \ > >>>>>>> NETIF_F_GSO_IPXIP4 | > >>>>>>> \ > >>>>>>> NETIF_F_GSO_IPXIP6 | > >>>>>>> \ > >>>>>>> + NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 | > >>>>>>> \ > >>>>>>> NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL | > >>>>>>> \ > >>>>>>> NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Are you adding this to NETIF_F_GSO_ENCAP_ALL? Wouldn't it make more > >>>>>> sense to add it to NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I'm adding to NETIF_F_GSO_ENCAP_ALL (not very clear from the > >>>>> context). I will fix the commit log. > >>>>> > >>>>> In: 83aa025 udp: add gso support to virtual devices, the support was > >>>>> also added to NETIF_F_GSO_ENCAP_ALL (although subsequently reverted due > >>>>> to UDP GRO not being in place), so I wonder what the reason was for > >>>>> that? > >>>> > >>>> That was probably just a bad choice on my part. > >>>> > >>>> It worked in practice, but if NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE works the same > >>>> without unexpected side effects, then I agree that it is the better > >>>> choice. > >>>> > >>>> That choice does appear to change behavior when sending over tunnel > >>>> devices. Might it send tunneled GSO packets over loopback? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> I set up a test case using fou tunneling through a bridge device using > >>> the udpgso_bench_tx test where packets are not received correctly if > >>> NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 is added to NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE. If I have it added > >>> to NETIF_F_GSO_ENCAP_ALL, it does work correctly. So there are more > >>> fixes required to include it in NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE. > >>> > >>> The use-case I have only requires it to be in NETIF_F_GSO_ENCAP_ALL, but > >>> if it needs to go in NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE, I can look at what's required > >>> more next week. > >>> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I haven't had a chance to investigate what goes wrong with including > >> NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 in NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE - but I was just wondering if > >> people are ok with NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 being added to > >> NETIF_F_GSO_ENCAP_ALL and not NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE (ie the original > >> patch as posted)? > >> > >> As I mentioned that is sufficient for my use-case, and its how Willem > >> originally proposed this. > > > > Indeed, based on the previous discussion this sounds fine to me. > > > > Willem > > Are you OK to ACK this? If not, is there something else you'd rather see > here?
Sure. Unless Alex still has objections, feel free to resubmit with my Acked-by.
