On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 07:46:46PM -0700, Pravin Shelar wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:03:57AM -0700, Pravin Shelar wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> wrote: > >> > Allow datapath to recognize and extract MPLS labels into flow keys > >> > and execute actions which push, pop, and set labels on packets. > >> > > >> > Based heavily on work by Leo Alterman, Ravi K, Isaku Yamahata and Joe > >> > Stringer. > >> > > >> > Cc: Ravi K <rke...@gmail.com> > >> > Cc: Leo Alterman <lalter...@nicira.com> > >> > Cc: Isaku Yamahata <yamah...@valinux.co.jp> > >> > Cc: Joe Stringer <j...@wand.net.nz> > >> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> > >> > > >> > --- > >> > > >> > + > >> > + /* this hack needed to get regular skb_gso_segment() */ > >> > +#ifdef HAVE___SKB_GSO_SEGMENT > >> > +#undef __skb_gso_segment > >> > + skb_gso = __skb_gso_segment(skb, features, tx_path); > >> > +#else > >> > +#undef skb_gso_segment > >> > + skb_gso = skb_gso_segment(skb, features); > >> > +#endif > >> > + > >> > >> We can get rid of #ifdefs by just using different name for > >> rpl___skb_gso_segment(), something like mpls_vlan_skb_gso_segment(). > >> The way it is done for tnl-gso. > > > > Thanks. > > > > The reason that I had the code arranged this way was so that > > calls to __skb_gso_segment() would go via rpl___skb_gso_segment() > > on kernels older than v3.11. In particular calls outside of gso.c. > > > > On closer examination the only such case is in ovs_dp_upcall(). > > Currently there should be no need to perform MPLS GSO segmentation in that > > case because MPLS GSO segmentation can only be needed after actions are > > applied. > > > > However, I am concerned that it may be necessary later when > > recirculation is introduced as in that case an upcall may occur > > on a packet which has had actions applied. > > good point. > > currently we define __skb_gso_segment using skb_gso_segemt(). You have > reversed it. Is there any reason? > if you keep it as it is, it can simplify code a bit.
Thanks. I believe that I wanted to use the real __skb_gso_segment() to back the compat version of __skb_gso_segment(). I can't recall specifically why and that change seems to be orthogonal to the MPLS patches. I have switched things around as you suggested and the code looks much cleaner. Thanks for the suggestion. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
