On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:12:20 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > But the correct fix is to remove egdev crutch completely IMO.
>> Not against it, sometimes designs should change and be repl
From: Jakub Kicinski
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:27:00 -0700
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 15:06:40 -0400 (EDT), David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jakub Kicinski
>> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:57:47 -0700
>>
>> > Do we still care about correctness and not breaking backward
>> > compatibility?
>>
>> Jakub let m
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 10:59:30 +0300, Paul Blakey wrote:
> Maybe we can apply my patch logic of still trying the egress dev if the
> block has a single device, and not shared. Is that ok with you?
I don't remember that patch but sounds pretty bad.
> You're patch seems good as an add on, but the egr
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:12:20 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:57:47 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:04:03 +0300, Paul Blakey wrote:
> >> > When using a vxlan device as the ingress dev, we count it
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:15:27 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:27 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 15:06:40 -0400 (EDT), David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Jakub Kicinski
> >> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:57:47 -0700
> >>
> >> > Do we still care about correctness an
On 06/06/2018 00:27, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 15:06:40 -0400 (EDT), David Miller wrote:
From: Jakub Kicinski
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:57:47 -0700
Do we still care about correctness and not breaking backward
compatibility?
Jakub let me know if you want me to revert this c
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:27 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 15:06:40 -0400 (EDT), David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jakub Kicinski
>> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:57:47 -0700
>>
>> > Do we still care about correctness and not breaking backward
>> > compatibility?
>>
>> Jakub let me know i
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:57:47 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:04:03 +0300, Paul Blakey wrote:
>> > When using a vxlan device as the ingress dev, we count it as a
>> > "no offload dev", so when such a rule comes and err st
On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 15:06:40 -0400 (EDT), David Miller wrote:
> From: Jakub Kicinski
> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:57:47 -0700
>
> > Do we still care about correctness and not breaking backward
> > compatibility?
>
> Jakub let me know if you want me to revert this change.
Yes, I think this patch
From: Jakub Kicinski
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:57:47 -0700
> Do we still care about correctness and not breaking backward
> compatibility?
Jakub let me know if you want me to revert this change.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:57:47 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:04:03 +0300, Paul Blakey wrote:
> > When using a vxlan device as the ingress dev, we count it as a
> > "no offload dev", so when such a rule comes and err stop is true,
> > we fail early and don't try the egdev route
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:04:03 +0300, Paul Blakey wrote:
> When using a vxlan device as the ingress dev, we count it as a
> "no offload dev", so when such a rule comes and err stop is true,
> we fail early and don't try the egdev route which can offload it
> through the egress device.
>
> Fix that b
From: Paul Blakey
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:04:03 +0300
> When using a vxlan device as the ingress dev, we count it as a
> "no offload dev", so when such a rule comes and err stop is true,
> we fail early and don't try the egdev route which can offload it
> through the egress device.
>
> Fix tha
When using a vxlan device as the ingress dev, we count it as a
"no offload dev", so when such a rule comes and err stop is true,
we fail early and don't try the egdev route which can offload it
through the egress device.
Fix that by not calling the block offload if one of the devices
attached to i
14 matches
Mail list logo
