Re: [linux-nics] [PATCH net 3/5] fm10k: Implement ndo_gso_check()

[Jeff Kirsher]

On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 10:26 -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> On 5 November 2014 04:47, Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 14:44 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jeff Kirsher
> > > <jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 13:56 -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> > > >> ndo_gso_check() was recently introduced to allow NICs to report the
> > > >> offloading support that they have on a per-skb basis. Add an
> > > >> implementation for this driver which checks for something that looks
> > > >> like VXLAN.
> > > >>
> > > >> Implementation shamelessly stolen from Tom Herbert:
> > > >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/332428/focus=333111
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joestringer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> Should this driver report support for GSO on packets with tunnel
> > > >> headers
> > > >> up to 64B like the i40e driver does?
> > > >> ---
> > > >>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_netdev.c |   12 ++++++++++++
> > > >>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Joe, I will add your patch to my queue.
> > >
> > > Hi Jeff, please see my comment on patch 0/5, we're essentially
> > > replicating the same helper four different times (fm10k, mlx4, benet,
> > > qlgc) - I don't see the point in doing so. I asked Joe to come up with
> > > one generic helper and then to pick it up by the four drivers, makes
> > > sense?
> >
> > Yeah, I just saw your reply Or.  Ok, I will await an update to Joe's
> > series, thanks!
> 
> Thanks Or/Jeff.
> 
> There is also the question in the commit message above, perhaps fm10k
> support is a bit different - wasn't sure who to ask regarding that.

Matthew Vick is the fm10k maintainer now and can answer any fm10k
questions you may have.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part