On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Duyck
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> In several gso_segment functions there are checks of gso_type against
>>> a seemingly abitrary list of SKB_GSO_* flags. This
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> In several gso_segment functions there are checks of gso_type against
>> a seemingly abitrary list of SKB_GSO_* flags. This seems like an
>> attempt to identify unsupported GSO types, bu
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> In several gso_segment functions there are checks of gso_type against
> a seemingly abitrary list of SKB_GSO_* flags. This seems like an
> attempt to identify unsupported GSO types, but since the stack is
> the one that set these GSO types in th
In several gso_segment functions there are checks of gso_type against
a seemingly abitrary list of SKB_GSO_* flags. This seems like an
attempt to identify unsupported GSO types, but since the stack is
the one that set these GSO types in the first place this seems
unnecessary to do. If a combination
