Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:01:24 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Alan Cox <alc@rice.edu> Subject: Re: svn commit: r246204 - head/sys/arm/include Message-ID: <510C2D24.60303@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmokHDfGzu9B50ZA8pmaqeWQHK2zSvrbbpce68Tup9FqunQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201302011026.r11AQVL9068427@svn.freebsd.org> <510C00CB.8000409@rice.edu> <510C1E7A.2090509@freebsd.org> <CAJ-VmokHDfGzu9B50ZA8pmaqeWQHK2zSvrbbpce68Tup9FqunQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01.02.2013 21:23, Adrian Chadd wrote: > .. before you make that assumption, please re-visit some the .. > lower-end integrated ethernet MACs in embedded chips. > > I don't know whether the Atheros stuff does (I think it does, but I > don't know under what conditions it's possible.) > > Maybe have it by default not return jumbo mbufs, and if a driver wants > jumbo mbufs it can explicitly ask for them. Jumbo frames do not see wide-spread use. If they are used, then in data centre LAN environments and possibly also inter-datacenter. That is high performance environments. I seriously doubt that lower-end ethernet MACs you're referring to fit that bill. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?510C2D24.60303>