Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] ethtool: Add support for toggling any of the GSO offloads

On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 17:30 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Ben Hutchings [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 16:25 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:

quoted

The strings were missing for several of the GSO offloads that are
available.  This patch provides the missing strings so that we can toggle
or query any of them via the ethtool command.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <redacted>
---
 net/core/ethtool.c |    3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/core/ethtool.c b/net/core/ethtool.c
index 2966cd0d7c93..b3c39d531469 100644
--- a/net/core/ethtool.c
+++ b/net/core/ethtool.c

@@ -82,9 +82,12 @@ static const char netdev_features_strings[NETDEV_FEATURE_COUNT][ETH_GSTRING_LEN]

      [NETIF_F_TSO6_BIT] =             "tx-tcp6-segmentation",
      [NETIF_F_FSO_BIT] =              "tx-fcoe-segmentation",
      [NETIF_F_GSO_GRE_BIT] =          "tx-gre-segmentation",
+     [NETIF_F_GSO_GRE_CSUM_BIT] =     "tx-gre-csum-segmentation",

All of the existing checksum offload names include the word "checksum"
in full, so I think the new names should do the same.

It isn't a checksum offload though, it is a segmentation offload for a
tunnel that has an outer checksum.  I was hoping to avoid using the
word checksum as that might make it confusing as it is a segmentation
offload, not a checksum offload.

Yes, but my point is that we haven't used the abbreviation "csum".

quoted

quoted

      [NETIF_F_GSO_IPIP_BIT] =         "tx-ipip-segmentation",
      [NETIF_F_GSO_SIT_BIT] =          "tx-sit-segmentation",
      [NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_BIT] =   "tx-udp_tnl-segmentation",
+     [NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM_BIT] = "tx-udp_tnl-csum-segmentation",
+     [NETIF_F_GSO_TUNNEL_REMCSUM_BIT] = "tx-remcsum-segmentation",

I think this should be "tx-tunnel-remote-checksum-segmentation", though
that is getting quite unwieldy.

Right.  As it is I think we might be coming up on the 32 character
limit for the strings.  Replacing csum with checksum would probably
push us over.

Right, I wasn't even thinking about the static limit!  That does weigh
rather heavily in favour of abbreviation here.

Please do at least hyphenate "remcsum" though.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer.