Re: [net-next 00/10] Add Geneve

[Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Andy Zhou <azhou@nicira.com> wrote:
>> Following patches adds initial support for Geneve tunnel protocol
>
> Just to make this a bit more clear, would it be correct to say that
> the logical ordering here is as follows:
>
Agreed, improvements to the general infrastructure to support UDP
tunneling should be done first. This was already begun with
introduction of udp_tunnel.[ch] and the udp_tunnel_xmit functions seem
like a nice addition at least.

Also, we have at least two instances of UDP tunneling in the code that
should addressed when interface improvements: VXLAN and L2TP. Please
make sure *both* of these are considered with such patches (also the
needs for Geneve, GUE, LISP, etc. should be considered, but please no
protocol specific stuff in the common infrastructure code!)

>> 1. Add common UDP tunnel code into UDP tunnel support function
>> 2. Refactor vxlan driver to make use of the UDP tunnel support
>> 3. Add Geneve driver.
>
> implemented by patches 1-5 below)
>
>> Andy Zhou (5):
>>   net: Rename ndo_add_vxlan_port to ndo_add_udp_tunnel_port.
>>   udp: Expand UDP tunnel common APIs
>>   vxlan: Remove vxlan_get_rx_port()
>>   net: Refactor vxlan driver to make use of common UDP tunnel functions
>>   net: Add Geneve tunneling protocol driver
>
> and on top of that
>
>> 4. Refactor Openvswitch  in preparation for #5
>> 5. Add Geneve support to Openvswitch.
>
> implemented by patches 6-10 (below)
>
>> Jesse Gross (5):
>>   openvswitch: Eliminate memset() from flow_extract.
>>   openvswitch: Add support for matching on OAM packets.
>>   openvswitch: Wrap struct ovs_key_ipv4_tunnel in a new structure.
>>   openvswitch: Factor out allocation and verification of actions.
>>   openvswitch: Add support for Geneve tunneling.
>
> I understand the wish to eventually have something that goes beyond
> refactoring of
> the vxlan and tunneling code plus Geneve basics. However, isn't the
> 1st part of the series
> (patches 1-5) have something is common to Tom's GUE work, which is
> currently under review
> too? I think we need first see how the basic elements from your series
> go along together with GUE.
>
> Or.