From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:44:19 -0800 > On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 12:06 -0500, David Miller wrote: >> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 08:52:28 -0800 >> >> > On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 17:56 +0800, Hayes Wang wrote: >> >> Drop the tx packet which is more than the size of agg_buf_sz. When >> >> creating a bridge with the device, we may get the tx packet with >> >> TSO and the length is more than the gso_max_size which is set by >> >> the driver through netif_set_gso_max_size(). Such packets couldn't >> >> be transmitted and should be dropped directly. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> ... >> > Looks like a candidate for ndo_gso_check(), so that we do not drop, but >> > instead segment from netif_needs_gso()/validate_xmit_skb() >> >> You mean have the bridge implement the ndo_gso_check() method right? > > No, I meant this particular driver. > > Note that netif_skb_features() does only this check : > > if (gso_segs > dev->gso_max_segs || gso_segs < dev->gso_min_segs) > features &= ~NETIF_F_GSO_MASK; > > Ie not testing gso_max_size > > It looks like all these particular tests should be moved on > ndo_gso_check(), to remove code from netif_skb_features() A check against gso_max_size is generic enough that it ought to be put right into netif_needs_gso() rather then duplicating it into every driver's ndo_gso_check() method don't you think? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
