Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:57:19 +0100 (CET) From: Sten Spans <sten@blinkenlights.nl> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> Subject: Re: changes to make ethernet packets able to be unaligned... Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0503191553060.25978@tea.blinkenlights.nl> In-Reply-To: <20050318211424.I99115@odysseus.silby.com> References: <20050317221359.GN89312@funkthat.com> <20050318021907.H844@odysseus.silby.com> <20050318092429.GD37984@funkthat.com> <20050318211424.I99115@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > Well, right now most (all?) drivers handle the alignment issue, so moving the > alignment step into the ethernet code would centralize it in one place, and > would not break anything. Removing the alignment requirement without > actually having tested all the protocols is going to break something. Having > the protocols handle alignment themselves is a good goal, but that's a second > step you can take later. em with jumboframes is borken atm. It seems some drivers don't handle the jumboframes - chained mbufs case quite correctly. -- Sten Spans "There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." Leonard Cohen - Anthem
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOC.4.61.0503191553060.25978>