Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:00:11 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys mbuf.h src/sys/net if_ethersubr.c src/sys/dev/mxge mxge_lro.c Message-ID: <466D9BBB.1060601@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200706111459.l5BExvTp020932@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200706111459.l5BExvTp020932@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Gallatin wrote: > gallatin 2007-06-11 14:59:56 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/sys mbuf.h > sys/net if_ethersubr.c > sys/dev/mxge mxge_lro.c > Log: > Allow drivers, such as cxgb and mxge, which support LRO to bypass > the MTU check in ether_input() on LRO merged frames. > > Discussed with: kmacy Not discussed with: andre Your change isn't the right way to make this work. LRO is an interface capability (that should have the option to disable it) and the test in ether_input() should go on that instead. LRO is not an information that is needed beyond ether_input() and thus doesn't have to be a mbuf flag. I've indicated that I'm working in this area as well and at least dropping an email or a ping IRC would have been nice. I would have told you the above right away. My common version of LRO isn't ready yet as I'm a bit short on time and I chose to concentrate on TCP it- self. We only have to make sure that we don't exclude a common LRO implementation due to API/ABI issues for 7.1R. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?466D9BBB.1060601>