Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v4 5/5] xen-netback: enable IPv6 TCP GSO to the guest

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 17:52 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Campbell
> > Sent: 16 October 2013 17:49
> > To: Paul Durrant
> > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wei Liu; David Vrabel
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 5/5] xen-netback: enable IPv6 TCP GSO to
> > the guest
> > 
> > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 16:06 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > This patch adds code to handle SKB_GSO_TCPV6 skbs and construct
> > appropriate
> > > extra or prefix segments to pass the large packet to the frontend. New
> > > xenstore flags, feature-gso-tcpv6 and feature-gso-tcpv6-prefix, are
> > sampled
> > > to determine if the frontend is capable of handling such packets.
> > 
> > IIRC the reason we have feature-gso-tcpv4 and feature-gso-tcpv4-prefix
> > is that the former did things in a way which Windows couldn't cope with.
> > I assuming that is true for v6 too. But could Linux cope with the prefix
> > version too for v6 and reduce the number of options? Or is the
> > non-prefix variant actually better, if the guest can manage, for some
> > reason?
> >
> 
> The non-prefix variant actually conveys type information and so will
> be better for frontends that don't have to re-parse the headers
> anyway.

Make sense, thanks.

> 
>   Paul
>  
> > I suppose in the end its all piggybacking off the v4 code paths so
> > supporting both isn't a hardship.
> > 
> 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel