[PATCH net-next v3 0/6] openvswitch: VXLAN tunneling.

[PATCH net-next v3 0/6] openvswitch: VXLAN tunneling.

[Pravin B Shelar]

First two patches extends vxlan so that openvswitch can
share vxlan udp port with vxlan module. Rest of patches
refactors vxlan data plane so that ovs can share that
code with vxlan module.
Last patch adds vxlan-vport to openvswitch.

Pravin B Shelar (6):
  vxlan: Allow multiple receive handlers.
  vxlan: Extend vxlan handlers for openvswitch.
  vxlan: Factor out vxlan send api.
  vxlan: Improve vxlan headroom calculation.
  vxlan: Add tx-vlan offload support.
  openvswitch: Add vxlan tunneling support.

 drivers/net/vxlan.c              |  477 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 include/net/vxlan.h              |   47 ++++
 include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h |   11 +
 net/openvswitch/Kconfig          |   13 +
 net/openvswitch/Makefile         |    4 +
 net/openvswitch/vport-vxlan.c    |  208 +++++++++++++++++
 net/openvswitch/vport.c          |    3 +
 net/openvswitch/vport.h          |    1 +
 8 files changed, 590 insertions(+), 174 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 include/net/vxlan.h
 create mode 100644 net/openvswitch/vport-vxlan.c

Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] openvswitch: VXLAN tunneling.

[Jesse Gross]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@nicira.com> wrote:
> First two patches extends vxlan so that openvswitch can
> share vxlan udp port with vxlan module. Rest of patches
> refactors vxlan data plane so that ovs can share that
> code with vxlan module.
> Last patch adds vxlan-vport to openvswitch.

Stephen, will you take the first five so I can take the last one?

Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] openvswitch: VXLAN tunneling.

[David Miller]

From: Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@nicira.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:00:26 -0700

> First two patches extends vxlan so that openvswitch can
> share vxlan udp port with vxlan module. Rest of patches
> refactors vxlan data plane so that ovs can share that
> code with vxlan module.
> Last patch adds vxlan-vport to openvswitch.

I'm mostly fine with this patch series and I assume Stephen will
eventually take it in via his vxlan tree.

However I do have one issue with patch #1 that I'd like to ask you to
consider.

You're doing two seperate things there.  First, you're abstracting out
the handler bits at one level of indirection via "struct
vxlan_handler" Second, you're adjusting how the headers are handled
in the handler paths.

I understand why you're doing the second part, to accomodate multiple
handlers properly.

But I think it would be much better to do this in two stages.

The first stage does the "struct vxlan_handler" abstraction and then
the second stage reworks how packet headers get adjusted.

I'm suggesting this for the purposes of bisectability.  I believe that
the header handling adjustments are the part that are going to be the
most dangerous for regressions.  So it would be best if we could
exactly pinpoint that exact change as causing problems in the future.

When you split this up, in the first patch, enforce only one handler
at a time.  You can remove this restriction as part of the second
patch.

I frankly think that this will make these changes easier to review and
audit as well.

How does that sound?

Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] openvswitch: VXLAN tunneling.

[Pravin Shelar]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:41 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@nicira.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:00:26 -0700
>
>> First two patches extends vxlan so that openvswitch can
>> share vxlan udp port with vxlan module. Rest of patches
>> refactors vxlan data plane so that ovs can share that
>> code with vxlan module.
>> Last patch adds vxlan-vport to openvswitch.
>
> I'm mostly fine with this patch series and I assume Stephen will
> eventually take it in via his vxlan tree.
>
> However I do have one issue with patch #1 that I'd like to ask you to
> consider.
>
> You're doing two seperate things there.  First, you're abstracting out
> the handler bits at one level of indirection via "struct
> vxlan_handler" Second, you're adjusting how the headers are handled
> in the handler paths.
>
> I understand why you're doing the second part, to accomodate multiple
> handlers properly.
>
> But I think it would be much better to do this in two stages.
>
> The first stage does the "struct vxlan_handler" abstraction and then
> the second stage reworks how packet headers get adjusted.
>
> I'm suggesting this for the purposes of bisectability.  I believe that
> the header handling adjustments are the part that are going to be the
> most dangerous for regressions.  So it would be best if we could
> exactly pinpoint that exact change as causing problems in the future.
>
> When you split this up, in the first patch, enforce only one handler
> at a time.  You can remove this restriction as part of the second
> patch.
>
> I frankly think that this will make these changes easier to review and
> audit as well.
>
> How does that sound?

I agree, I will send updated patches.