Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751430AbbKHK5s (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Nov 2015 05:57:48 -0500 Received: from helcar.hengli.com.au ([209.40.204.226]:53555 "EHLO helcar.hengli.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750823AbbKHK5q (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Nov 2015 05:57:46 -0500 Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:57:10 +0800 From: Herbert Xu To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: Maciej =?utf-8?Q?=C5=BBenczykowski?= , Tom Herbert , Jiri Benc , Netdev , LKML Subject: Re: GSO with udp_tunnel_xmit_skb Message-ID: <20151108105710.GA30282@gondor.apana.org.au> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 945 Lines: 21 On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 11:36:53AM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > Wouldn't there be some significant savings from bundling together > several UDP packets meant for the same destination, and sending those > all as one super-packet, so they don't each have to traverse the whole > networking and netfilter stack? By asking that question, it doesn't > feel as though I've come up with a new idea; is there a reason why > that isn't implemented or why (if) it was rejected? UDP carries no ordering information so this doesn't work. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/