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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210511044253.469034-1-yuri.benditovich@daynix.com>
 <20210511044253.469034-5-yuri.benditovich@daynix.com> <eb8c4984-f0cc-74ee-537f-fc60deaaaa73@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <eb8c4984-f0cc-74ee-537f-fc60deaaaa73@redhat.com>
From:   Yuri Benditovich <yuri.benditovich@daynix.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 11:33:59 +0300
Message-ID: <CAOEp5OdrCDPx4ijLcEOm=Wxma6hc=nyqw4Xm6bggBxvgtR0tbg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tun: indicate support for USO feature
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Yan Vugenfirer <yan@daynix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 9:50 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> =E5=9C=A8 2021/5/11 =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=8812:42, Yuri Benditovich =E5=86=99=
=E9=81=93:
> > Signed-off-by: Yuri Benditovich <yuri.benditovich@daynix.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/net/tun.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> > index 84f832806313..a35054f9d941 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> > @@ -2812,7 +2812,7 @@ static int set_offload(struct tun_struct *tun, un=
signed long arg)
> >                       arg &=3D ~(TUN_F_TSO4|TUN_F_TSO6);
> >               }
> >
> > -             arg &=3D ~TUN_F_UFO;
> > +             arg &=3D ~(TUN_F_UFO|TUN_F_USO);
>
>
> It looks to me kernel doesn't use "USO", so TUN_F_UDP_GSO_L4 is a better
> name for this

No problem, I can change it in v2

 and I guess we should toggle NETIF_F_UDP_GSO_l4 here?

No, we do not, because this indicates only the fact that the guest can
send large UDP packets and have them splitted to UDP segments.

>
> And how about macvtap?

We will check how to do that for macvtap. We will send a separate
patch for macvtap or ask for advice.

>
> Thanks
>
>
> >       }
> >
> >       /* This gives the user a way to test for new features in future b=
y
>