On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 8:37 AM Shmulik Ladkani <shmu...@metanetworks.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 10:49:55 -0400 > Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > But I wonder whether it is a given that head_skb has headlen. > > This is what I observed for GRO packets that do have headlen frag_list > members: the 'head_skb' itself had a headlen too, and its head was > built using the original gso_size (similar to the frag_list members). > > Maybe Eric can comment better. > > > Btw, it seems slightly odd to me tot test head_frag before testing > > headlen in the v2 patch. > > Requested by Alexander. I'm fine either way.
Yeah, my thought on that was "do we care about the length if the data is stored in a head_frag?". I suppose you could flip the logic and make it "do we care about it being a head_frag if there is no data there?". The reason I had suggested the head_frag test first was because it was a single test bit whereas the length requires reading two fields and doing a comparison. For either ordering it is fine by me. So if we need to feel free to swap those two tests for a v3. Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.du...@linux.intel.com>
