From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] vxlan: remove gro_cell support Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 18:16:45 +0200 Message-ID: <1467994605.30694.22.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> References: <6f90239eb6ccb9145a886d4f01c6620c6d6ec87f.1467907022.git.pabeni@redhat.com> <1467908002.1273.42.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <1467992022.30694.11.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Paolo Abeni , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Jesse Gross , Tom Herbert , Jiri Benc To: Hannes Frederic Sowa Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:34925 "EHLO mail-wm0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932480AbcGHQQ4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:16:56 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id z126so16477246wme.0 for ; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 09:16:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 11:55 -0400, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > Exactly, thus we are also only touching UDP tunneling protocols at the > moment. Did you nack the removal of gro_cell support from the udp > protocols or are you fine with it, given that we won't take away the > functionality to spread out skb_checksum to mulitple CPUs during GRO for > other protocols and didn't plan to do so? I am fine with it, but could you rephrase the changelog, otherwise some people will think they can copy/paste this to other tunnels ?