On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 8:08 AM Jon Maloy <jma...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06/07/2021 14:22, Xin Long wrote:
> > Since there's no enough bit in netdev_features_t for
> > NETIF_F_GSO_TIPC_BIT, and tipc is using the simliar
> > code as sctp, this patch will reuse SKB_GSO_SCTP and
> > NETIF_F_GSO_SCTP_BIT for tipc.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien....@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   include/linux/skbuff.h |  2 --
> >   net/tipc/node.c        | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> >   net/tipc/offload.c     |  4 ++--
> >   3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > index 148bf0ed7336..b2db9cd9a73f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > @@ -599,8 +599,6 @@ enum {
> >       SKB_GSO_UDP_L4 = 1 << 17,
> >
> >       SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST = 1 << 18,
> > -
> > -     SKB_GSO_TIPC = 1 << 19,
> >   };
> >
> >   #if BITS_PER_LONG > 32
> > diff --git a/net/tipc/node.c b/net/tipc/node.c
> > index 9947b7dfe1d2..17e59c8dac31 100644
> > --- a/net/tipc/node.c
> > +++ b/net/tipc/node.c
> > @@ -2068,7 +2068,7 @@ static bool tipc_node_check_state(struct tipc_node 
> > *n, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >    * Invoked with no locks held. Bearer pointer must point to a valid bearer
> >    * structure (i.e. cannot be NULL), but bearer can be inactive.
> >    */
> > -void tipc_rcv(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *skb, struct tipc_bearer *b)
> > +static void __tipc_rcv(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *skb, struct 
> > tipc_bearer *b)
> >   {
> >       struct sk_buff_head xmitq;
> >       struct tipc_link_entry *le;
> > @@ -2189,6 +2189,19 @@ void tipc_rcv(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *skb, 
> > struct tipc_bearer *b)
> >       kfree_skb(skb);
> >   }
> >
> > +void tipc_rcv(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *skb, struct tipc_bearer *b)
> > +{
> > +     struct sk_buff *seg, *next;
> > +
> > +     if (!skb_is_gso(skb) || !skb_is_gso_sctp(skb))
> > +             return __tipc_rcv(net, skb, b);
> > +
> > +     skb_list_walk_safe(skb_shinfo(skb)->frag_list, seg, next)
> > +             __tipc_rcv(net, seg, b);
> > +     skb_shinfo(skb)->frag_list = NULL;
> > +     consume_skb(skb);
> > +}
> > +
> >   void tipc_node_apply_property(struct net *net, struct tipc_bearer *b,
> >                             int prop)
> >   {
> > diff --git a/net/tipc/offload.c b/net/tipc/offload.c
> > index d137679f4db0..26e372178635 100644
> > --- a/net/tipc/offload.c
> > +++ b/net/tipc/offload.c
> > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
> >   static struct sk_buff *tipc_gso_segment(struct sk_buff *skb,
> >                                       netdev_features_t features)
> >   {
> > -     if (!(skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type & SKB_GSO_TIPC))
> > +     if (!(skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type & SKB_GSO_SCTP))
> >               return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >
> >       return skb_segment(skb, (features | NETIF_F_HW_CSUM) & ~NETIF_F_SG);
> > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ bool tipc_msg_gso_append(struct sk_buff **p, struct 
> > sk_buff *skb, u16 segs)
> >
> >               skb_shinfo(nskb)->frag_list = head;
> >               skb_shinfo(nskb)->gso_segs = 1;
> > -             skb_shinfo(nskb)->gso_type = SKB_GSO_TIPC;
> > +             skb_shinfo(nskb)->gso_type = SKB_GSO_SCTP;
> >               skb_shinfo(nskb)->gso_size = GSO_BY_FRAGS;
> >               skb_reset_network_header(head);
> >
> >
>
> I don“t have much more to add, -it looks good to me, and way simpler
> than what I was trying a couple of years ago.
>
> If you fix the checkpatch issues and, maybe if possible, split it into
> two series, you have my ack.
>
> PS. Did you test this with crypto?
Hi Jon,

Sorry for late.

Got an urgent problem from a customer recently, and spent quite a few
weeks getting things almost done.
I need to do more testing for its performance in different scenarios
before continuing.
I think I did, but I will confirm it will work well over crypto.

Thanks a lot for checking!

>
> ///jon
>


_______________________________________________
tipc-discussion mailing list
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion

Reply via email to