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 589B3324B19; Wed, 5 Nov 2025 16:58:24 +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=1762361907; cv=none; b=IVMWKZuAKpChghcAOvVGt0J2rNRjXKsrmwFsZ8bHxpNICT5o8nJKfrWte90FYEQ0knLf6RHXCYafakylca6QVcF3hAcqz8s3qQQnFOHgXNdZeVI0yE/wABdSiqehxv2Bunps1xaHmw1Jc/Pe3bSWEW4KQMu7hpYRIn1LCcWLQHU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762361907; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9xrSG4KwzBel0h3uoDLn9/0RebfvkZQ771TsmVilbdw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=YeenuwE8gdFhECj8IrAna1S50ZFo1y0jPHadm8QrZPPjXe5Kg6VuovRQcDtt3npMlvFWV+6TzRdBs+tvqfNrSP0A5UVmibSdJu2adVH1RFgR3o3a4GbXl55MvwLrqS5DKKlc621EoiaM9eA3vwV6S3SDvobPl8yke+rk+2oAK4k= 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 [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4d1s2c4zrkzJ46Dk; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 00:58:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.188.26.250]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D57A1400D9; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 00:58:22 +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; Wed, 5 Nov 2025 19:58:21 +0300 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 19:58:21 +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 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 From: Dmitry Skorodumov In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.250) To mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.250) 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 ? > > I think you need to explain much more than a neutral sentence, Ok, got it. Will resend the patch with more description: I expect there will be v4 anyway. The reason is that this function is a protocol handler, installed on main port (with dev_add_pack()), so if main port supports GSO/checksum offload, OS will send us big/non-checksummed packets (tested with scp to IP of some child port). This packet is forwarded to child. I believe we may not expect child ipvlan-iface be prepared to RX big packet, without checksum. But I agree, that I should investigate behaviour in more details. May be I missed something and it is possible to force corresponding  TAP to somehow do this. > 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 have not seen the cover letter. Cover letter was sent to netdev@vger.kernel.org. Wasn't sure that it is a good practice to add to CC every maintainer to each email of the series. > Also you sent the series twice today :/ Well, I've sent just 000* by mistake. And immediately resent patches (as v3 in cover letter) after noticing this Dmitry