On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:12:44 +0200 Harald Welte wrote: > > If we were to propose again, setting aside considerations specific to > > Intel, I believe, considering the users of ethtool, the smallest units > > should be gtpu4|6 and gtpc4|6. > > agreed. Though I'm not entirely sure one would usually want to treat v4 > different from v6. I'd assume they would usually both follow the same > RSS scheme?
FWIW I had the same thought. But if we do add flow matching support for GTP one day we'll have to define a struct like struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec, which means size of the address matters? _______________________________________________ Intel-wired-lan mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
