Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:56:42 -0600 (CST) From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: justin@apple.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Request for review (HW checksum patches) Message-ID: <200003260056.SAA29089@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <local.mail.freebsd-hackers/200003252050.MAA08969@scv1.apple.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <local.mail.freebsd-hackers/200003252050.MAA08969@scv1.apple.com> you write: >> From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> >> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 13:35:53 -0600 >> To: net@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG >> Subject: Request for review (HW checksum patches) >> X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i >> Delivered-to: freebsd-net@freebsd.org >> X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >> >> I have a set of patches which allows offloading checksums to >> NICs which support it (right now, only the Alteon based cards). >> The patch is at <http://www.freebsd.org/~jlemon/csum.patch>. > >This prompts a question on a related issue: there seems to be an increase >in support of protocol operations on NICs (e.g., tickle/keep-alive support >while the system is sleeping; IPSec; ...). Is there enough there to let us >build a general mechanism for communication between stack and driver for >this sort of thing (e.g., a "meta-data" slot in the packet header which >points to an mbuf, or other structure, that contains the details)? The patches I have were designed to solve a single problem, just checksum offloading. There are enough bits left in the new flag field that you could use for something else, I don't know enough about what you'd want to do to say if it's enough for a general mechanism. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003260056.SAA29089>