Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:16:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Paolo Pisati <piso@freebsd.org> Cc: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 111230 for review Message-ID: <20061207161434.O50906@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20061207142254.GA1195@tin.it> References: <200612062319.kB6NJgsq031755@repoman.freebsd.org> <20061207110225.GU32700@FreeBSD.org> <4578070A.2030609@freebsd.org> <20061207142254.GA1195@tin.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Paolo Pisati wrote: > Then, after a discussion on irc, pull the plug on any present (and future) > hackery & half-baked solution, and declare in kernel libalias incompatible > with tso. This seems silly -- why is it not compatible? Perhaps I misunderstand, but I thought TSO passed down valid TCP/IP packets, they just happen to be really long, and will be post-processed by the hardware into a series of shorter segments with the same header properties. Imagine the ethernet device as a "router" that's performing TCP fragmentation for you, rather than IP fragmentation. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061207161434.O50906>