From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4166224AF7; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 15:41:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762443714; cv=none; b=tUL+7dpsxtHb4KF61GBPhR1lTmKwNdxPvnelihJZUB5XZtaXlUvZOn6U5HSvJJ7RvXbZhGYxPMZscj9klsvr7HLjv4hj3ADTrXQtPXfvYUbm2/WsikPYP+bUVzi7zdd6QbviUK2Dik0vZk1KVp47IVt9Q+hHq8u1VwZlVetZeGU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762443714; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UIJGSC6YNaxBD56Kik4Ckk90LPsOa5jzEU8QrfP1NZk=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:CC:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=KnEJG/8CxPSFddrJrZTtfy+m+jW17L74LcY15MWP9Jo1NWbzPu+KrMO1AZKrbeiC+T2KHlKrgP2Zq/kGYwRkeKSsLgR4UaVCMYPxQE/Kyf52v4VxPu4BqOoCOmeP+p7/uT/Gz9EiDRzWlOOknHQqy0EAUSe5tKzsnQm8/wbnGoc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4d2RHz6385zHnGcV; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 23:41:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.188.26.250]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C92D1402EE; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 23:41:43 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.123.122.223] (10.123.122.223) by mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.250) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 18:41:42 +0300 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 18:41:42 +0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/14] ipvlan: Support GSO for port -> ipvlan From: Dmitry Skorodumov To: Eric Dumazet CC: , , , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni References: <20251105161450.1730216-1-skorodumov.dmitry@huawei.com> <20251105161450.1730216-7-skorodumov.dmitry@huawei.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: mscpeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.188.49.51) To mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.250) On 05.11.2025 19:58, Dmitry Skorodumov wrote: > On 05.11.2025 19:29, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 8:15 AM Dmitry Skorodumov >> wrote: >>> If main port interface supports GSO, we need manually segment >>> the skb before forwarding it to ipvlan interface. >> Why ? Hm, really, this patch is not needed at all. tap_handle_frame() already does everything needed. Looks like I had another trouble and this patch was an attempt to fix it. >> Also I do not see any tests, for the whole series ? > Ok, If modules like this have some kind of unit-tests, I should study it and provide it. I haven't seen this as a common practice for most of the modules here. So far all testing is made manually (likely this should be described anyway) I see that currently there is no any tests for this ipvlan module (may be I missed something).. Do you have any ideas about tests? I'm a bit  confused at the moment: designing tests from scratch - this might be a bit tricky. Or it is enough just describe test-cases I checked manually (in some of the patches of the series)? Dmitry