On 30.01.2024 07:39, takeru hayasaka wrote:
> Hi Marcin-san
> Thanks for your review!
>
>> Do I understand correctly that all gtpu* include TEID? Maybe write it here.
> Yes, that's correct.
>
>> It would be nice to see a link to the patch that added GTP and 'e' flag support
> to ethtool itself ("ethtool: add support for rx-flow-hash gtp").
> I will send you the link.
> The one I sent earlier was outdated, so I've updated it to match this patch.
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240130053742.946517-1-hayatake396@xxxxxxxxx/
>
>> gtpc(4|6) doesn't include TEID, so what is its purpose?
> In GTPC communication, there is no TEID in the CSR (Create Session Request).
> Therefore, there are cases of GTPC that do not include TEID.
The way I understand it now, this patch (and the ethtool one) adds hashing on
TEID field in GTP* headers. So I wanted to ask why do we have a case (gtpc(4|6))
that doesn't include TEID? Do we hash on other fields in this header?
>
>> s/TEID(4byte)/TEID (4bytes)/
>> Also, I think two newlines should remain here.
> I will correct the TEID notation in the next patch!
Thanks,
Marcin
---8<---
