On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:16 PM Edward Cree <ec...@solarflare.com> wrote: > > On 30/10/2020 15:49, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:39 PM Edward Cree <ec...@solarflare.com> wrote: > >> + ESF_GZ_TX_TSO_ED_OUTER_UDP_LEN, encap && > >> !gso_partial, > > > > This is a boolean field to signal whether the NIC needs to fix up the > > udp length field ? > Yes.
Thanks > > Which in the case of GSO_PARTIAL has already been resolved by the gso > > layer (in __skb_udp_tunnel_segment). > Indeed. > > > Just curious, is this ever expected to be true? Not based on current > > advertised features, right? > As I mentioned in the patch description and cover letter, I'm not > entirely certain. I don't _think_ the stack will ever give us an > encap skb without GSO_PARTIAL with the features we've advertised, That's my understanding too. > but since the hardware supports it I thought it better to handle > that case anyway, just in case I'm mistaken. Then you could (as follow-up) advertise without GSO_PARTIAL and avoid the whole transition through the gso layer?
