> > > > > So the question is what to do now:
> > > > > A)
> > > > > Finalize patches for guest TX and respective QEMU patches
> > > > > Prepare RFC patches for guest RX, get ack on them
> > > > > Change the spec
> > > > > Finalize patches for guest RX according to the spec
> > > > >
> > > > > B)
> > > > > Reject the patches for guest TX
> > > > > Prepare RFC patches for everything, get ack on them
> > > > > Change the spec
> > > > > Finalize patches for everything according to the spec
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm for A) of course :)
> > > >
> > > > I'm for B :)
> > > >
> > > > The reasons are:
> > > >
> > > > 1) keep the assumption of tun_set_offload() to simply the logic and
> > > > compatibility
> > > > 2) it's hard or tricky to touch guest TX path only (e.g the
> > > > virtio_net_hdr_from_skb() is called in both RX and TX)
> > >
> > > I suspect there is _some_ misunderstanding here.
> > > I did not touch virtio_net_hdr_from_skb at all.
> > >
> >
> > Typo, actually I meant virtio_net_hdr_to_skb().
> OK.
> 2) tun_get_user() which is guest TX - this is covered
> 3) tap_get_user() which is guest TX - this is covered
> 4) {t}packet_send() which is userspace TX - this is OK, the userspace
> does not have this feature, it will never use USO
What do you mean exactly? I can certainly imagine packet socket users
that could benefit from using udp gso.
When adding support for a new GSO type in virtio_net_hdr, it ideally
is supported by all users of that interface. Alternatively, if some
users do not support the flag, a call that sets the flag has to
(continue to) fail hard, so that we can enable it at a later time.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
