Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <5c1fce37033e98e483728ea9879c3cf4ae83aa28.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] gro: add combined call_gro_receive() +
 INDIRECT_CALL_INET() helper
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:35:41 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20210319114300.108808-1-alobakin@pm.me>
References: <20210318184157.700604-1-alobakin@pm.me>
         <20210318184157.700604-3-alobakin@pm.me>
         <1ebd301832ff86cc414dd17eee0b3dfc91ff3c08.camel@redhat.com>
         <20210319111315.3069-1-alobakin@pm.me>
         <20210319114300.108808-1-alobakin@pm.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 (3.36.5-2.fc32) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 11:43 +0000, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> I'm not sure if you did it on purpose in commit aaa5d90b395a7
> ("net: use indirect call wrappers at GRO network layer").
> Was that intentional 

I must admit that 2y+ later my own intentions are not so clear to me
too;)

> for the sake of more optimized path for the
> kernels with moduled IPv6, 

Uhm... no I guess that was more an underlook on my side.

> or I can replace INDIRECT_CALL_INET()
> with INDIRECT_CALL_2() here too? 

If that build with IPV6=nmy, I would say yes.

> I want to keep GRO callbacks that
> make use of indirect call wrappers unified.

L4 will still need some special handling as ipv6 udp gro callbacks are
not builtin with CONFIG_IPV6=m :(

Cheers,

Paolo