search for: ufov4

...3.18 kernel fails. > > > > This series eliminate the ambiguous NETIF_F_UFO. > > But VIRTIO_NET_F_{HOST|GUEST}_UFO and VIRTIO_NET_F_HDR_GSO_UDP is still > ambigious. I know it was used to keep compatibility for legacy guest. But > what's the future plan? Differentiate UFOv4 and UFOv6 in virtio features and > gso type in vnet header looks sufficient? [...] The IPv6 fragmentation ID needs to be added to the vnet header, to do UFOv6 properly. If it wasn't for that lack, we wouldn't have to split the feature flag. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If more than one per...

...3.18 kernel fails. > > > > This series eliminate the ambiguous NETIF_F_UFO. > > But VIRTIO_NET_F_{HOST|GUEST}_UFO and VIRTIO_NET_F_HDR_GSO_UDP is still > ambigious. I know it was used to keep compatibility for legacy guest. But > what's the future plan? Differentiate UFOv4 and UFOv6 in virtio features and > gso type in vnet header looks sufficient? [...] The IPv6 fragmentation ID needs to be added to the vnet header, to do UFOv6 properly. If it wasn't for that lack, we wouldn't have to split the feature flag. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If more than one per...

...ate the ambiguous NETIF_F_UFO. >> > >> > But VIRTIO_NET_F_{HOST|GUEST}_UFO and VIRTIO_NET_F_HDR_GSO_UDP is >> still >> > ambigious. I know it was used to keep compatibility for legacy >> guest. But >> > what's the future plan? Differentiate UFOv4 and UFOv6 in virtio >> features and >> > gso type in vnet header looks sufficient? >> [...] >> >> The IPv6 fragmentation ID needs to be added to the vnet header, to >> do >> UFOv6 properly. If it wasn't for that lack, we wouldn't have to...

...ate the ambiguous NETIF_F_UFO. >> > >> > But VIRTIO_NET_F_{HOST|GUEST}_UFO and VIRTIO_NET_F_HDR_GSO_UDP is >> still >> > ambigious. I know it was used to keep compatibility for legacy >> guest. But >> > what's the future plan? Differentiate UFOv4 and UFOv6 in virtio >> features and >> > gso type in vnet header looks sufficient? >> [...] >> >> The IPv6 fragmentation ID needs to be added to the vnet header, to >> do >> UFOv6 properly. If it wasn't for that lack, we wouldn't have to...

...t this work, migrating a guest to a 3.18 kernel fails. > This series eliminate the ambiguous NETIF_F_UFO. But VIRTIO_NET_F_{HOST|GUEST}_UFO and VIRTIO_NET_F_HDR_GSO_UDP is still ambigious. I know it was used to keep compatibility for legacy guest. But what's the future plan? Differentiate UFOv4 and UFOv6 in virtio features and gso type in vnet header looks sufficient? With the series, we can't send UFOv6 packet but legacy guest can. How about fix the UFOv6 also in this series? Thanks > Vladislav Yasevich (10): > core: Split out UFO6 support > net: Correctly mark IPv6 U...

...> > > > This series eliminate the ambiguous NETIF_F_UFO. > > > > But VIRTIO_NET_F_{HOST|GUEST}_UFO and VIRTIO_NET_F_HDR_GSO_UDP is still > > ambigious. I know it was used to keep compatibility for legacy guest. But > > what's the future plan? Differentiate UFOv4 and UFOv6 in virtio features and > > gso type in vnet header looks sufficient? > [...] > > The IPv6 fragmentation ID needs to be added to the vnet header, to do > UFOv6 properly. If it wasn't for that lack, we wouldn't have to split > the feature flag. > > Ben....

...t this work, migrating a guest to a 3.18 kernel fails. > This series eliminate the ambiguous NETIF_F_UFO. But VIRTIO_NET_F_{HOST|GUEST}_UFO and VIRTIO_NET_F_HDR_GSO_UDP is still ambigious. I know it was used to keep compatibility for legacy guest. But what's the future plan? Differentiate UFOv4 and UFOv6 in virtio features and gso type in vnet header looks sufficient? With the series, we can't send UFOv6 packet but legacy guest can. How about fix the UFOv6 also in this series? Thanks > Vladislav Yasevich (10): > core: Split out UFO6 support > net: Correctly mark IPv6 U...

...> > > > This series eliminate the ambiguous NETIF_F_UFO. > > > > But VIRTIO_NET_F_{HOST|GUEST}_UFO and VIRTIO_NET_F_HDR_GSO_UDP is still > > ambigious. I know it was used to keep compatibility for legacy guest. But > > what's the future plan? Differentiate UFOv4 and UFOv6 in virtio features and > > gso type in vnet header looks sufficient? > [...] > > The IPv6 fragmentation ID needs to be added to the vnet header, to do > UFOv6 properly. If it wasn't for that lack, we wouldn't have to split > the feature flag. > > Ben....

...ambiguous NETIF_F_UFO. > >> > > But VIRTIO_NET_F_{HOST|GUEST}_UFO and VIRTIO_NET_F_HDR_GSO_UDP is > >>still > >> > ambigious. I know it was used to keep compatibility for legacy guest. > >>But > >> > what's the future plan? Differentiate UFOv4 and UFOv6 in virtio > >>features and > >> > gso type in vnet header looks sufficient? > >> [...] > >> The IPv6 fragmentation ID needs to be added to the vnet header, to do > >> UFOv6 properly. If it wasn't for that lack, we wouldn't have to...

...ambiguous NETIF_F_UFO. > >> > > But VIRTIO_NET_F_{HOST|GUEST}_UFO and VIRTIO_NET_F_HDR_GSO_UDP is > >>still > >> > ambigious. I know it was used to keep compatibility for legacy guest. > >>But > >> > what's the future plan? Differentiate UFOv4 and UFOv6 in virtio > >>features and > >> > gso type in vnet header looks sufficient? > >> [...] > >> The IPv6 fragmentation ID needs to be added to the vnet header, to do > >> UFOv6 properly. If it wasn't for that lack, we wouldn't have to...

UFO support in the kernel applies to both IPv4 and IPv6 protocols with the same device feature. However some devices may not be able to support one of the offloads. For this we split the UFO offload feature into 2 pieces. NETIF_F_UFO now controlls the IPv4 part and this series introduces NETIF_F_UFO6. As a result of this work, we can now re-enable NETIF_F_UFO on virtio_net devices and restore

UFO support in the kernel applies to both IPv4 and IPv6 protocols with the same device feature. However some devices may not be able to support one of the offloads. For this we split the UFO offload feature into 2 pieces. NETIF_F_UFO now controlls the IPv4 part and this series introduces NETIF_F_UFO6. As a result of this work, we can now re-enable NETIF_F_UFO on virtio_net devices and restore