On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:20:08 Vick, Matthew wrote:
> On 11/6/14, 4:55 PM, "Joe Stringer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:58:32PM +0000, Vick, Matthew wrote:
> >> On 11/5/14, 11:36 AM, "Jeff Kirsher" <[email protected]>
> >>
> >>wrote:
> >> Hi Joe, fm10k's hardware is pretty lax about the header size. As long as
> >> the total header length (outer+inner) is 184 bytes or less we're golden,
> >> so if I'm not mistaken that leaves us with a max of 130 bytes beyond the
> >> tunnel header.
> >
> >Oh, okay. To be more explicit, in the case of UDP tunnels I take it that
> >you're talking about L2+L3+(L4+)tunnel+L2+L3+L4 <= 184? (L4 perhaps
> >optional depending on the tunnel protocol used)
> >
> >In that case, the fm10k_gso_check would use something closer to
> >"skb_inner_transport_header(skb) - skb_mac_header(skb) > 184", or
> >perhaps 164 to allow for inner L4 header (?).
> >
> >Joe
>
> Yes, I'm talking about the full shebang.
>
> I like the 164 check, personally (with appropriate #define for
> readability).
Thanks for the feedback, I take it that this approach is preferable over the
other one involving an skb_gso_check() + fm10k_tx_encap_offload() call?