Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 23:39:16 +0000 From: "Somayajulu, David" <David.Somayajulu@cavium.com> To: hiren panchasara <hiren@strugglingcoder.info> Cc: David C Somayajulu <davidcs@FreeBSD.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: svn commit: r316309 - head/sys/dev/qlxgbe Message-ID: <BY2PR07MB1474F0541FB69A91B5AC9FA0EE340@BY2PR07MB1474.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <20170330231158.GI1016@strugglingcoder.info> References: <201703302243.v2UMhX2s011405@repo.freebsd.org> <20170330230227.GH1016@strugglingcoder.info> <BY2PR07MB14744C383EA86B3EA1F3927CEE340@BY2PR07MB1474.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20170330231158.GI1016@strugglingcoder.info>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> > I know this is not a new topic but a little more descriptive commit-lo= g would have been nicer. Also, you should update the manpage reflecting thi= s change. i.e. now it also supports software LRO when h/w LRO is disabled. >> Will do. Sorry about that. Minor correction. Please note that the driver provides the ability to choos= e between SoftwareLRO and HW LRO, when LRO is enabled - it is HW LRO by def= ault. If LRO is turned off via ifconfig, neither Software nor HW LRO is ena= bled. Cheers David S. -----Original Message----- From: hiren panchasara [mailto:hiren@strugglingcoder.info]=20 Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 4:12 PM To: Somayajulu, David <David.Somayajulu@cavium.com> Cc: David C Somayajulu <davidcs@FreeBSD.org>; src-committers@freebsd.org; s= vn-src-all@freebsd.org; svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r316309 - head/sys/dev/qlxgbe On 03/30/17 at 11:07P, Somayajulu, David wrote: > Hi Hiren, > > I know this is not a new topic but a little more descriptive commit-log= would have been nicer. Also, you should update the manpage reflecting this= change. i.e. now it also supports software LRO when h/w LRO is disabled. > Will do. Sorry about that. Thanks! >=20 > > Do you know of a case where one would want to disable h/w lro and enabl= e s/w lro? I guess where you want to free up nic and make cpu do more work? > I was under the impression as well, that s/w lro is moot, if h/w lro was = available, till one costumer asked for it. Not sure what the use case is. I thought this idea (like gro in linux) was popular when lro in h/w was con= sidered buggy and couldn't correctly do batching (i.e. hide useful flags). = Not sure if that's still the case. cheers, Hiren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BY2PR07MB1474F0541FB69A91B5AC9FA0EE340>