Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:20:19 +0300 From: Stefan Lambrev <stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com> To: Andrew Thompson <thompsa@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: if_bridge turns off checksum offload of members? Message-ID: <486A3D23.2020100@moneybookers.com> In-Reply-To: <20080701140550.GA379@citylink.fud.org.nz> References: <4868A34C.6030304@moneybookers.com> <20080630101629.GD79537@cdnetworks.co.kr> <20080701012531.GA92392@citylink.fud.org.nz> <4869FE2E.4070805@moneybookers.com> <20080701140550.GA379@citylink.fud.org.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greetings Andrew, The patch compiles and works as expected. I noticed something strange btw - swi1: net was consuming 100% WCPU (shown on top -S) but I'm not sure this have something to do with your patch, as I can't reproduce it right now .. Andrew Thompson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:51:42PM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> May be a stupid questions, but: >> >> 1) There are zero matches of IFCAP_TOE in kernel sources .. there is not >> support for TOE in 7.0, but may be this is work in progress for 8-current? >> > > Yes, its in current only. Just remove IFCAP_TOE. > > >> 2) In #define BRIDGE_IFCAPS_MASK (IFCAP_TOE|IFCAP_TSO|IFCAP_TXCSUM) - TOE >> should be repleaced with RXCSUM or just removed? >> 3) Why RX is never checked? In my case this doesn't matter because em turn >> off both TX and RX if only one is disabled, but probably there is a >> hardware, >> that can separate them e.g. RX disabled while TX enabled? >> > > Rx does not matter, whatever isnt offloaded in hardware is just computed > locally such as checking the cksum. Its Tx that messes up the bridge, if > a outgoing packet is generated locally on an interface that has Tx > offloading, it may actaully be sent out a different bridge member that > does not have that capability. This would cause it to be sent with an > invalid checksum for instance. > > The bridge used to just disable Tx offloading but this patch you are > testing makes sure each feature is supported by all members. > > >> 4) I'm not sure why bridge should not work with two interfaces one of which >> support TX and the other does not? At least if I turn on checksum offload >> only on one of the interfaces the bridge is still working ... >> >> Andrew Thompson wrote: >> >> - cut - >> >>> This patch should do that, are you able to test it Stefan? >>> >>> >>> cheers, >>> Andrew >>> >>> >> P.S. I saw very good results with netisr2 on a kernel from p4 before few >> months .. are there any patches flying around so I can test them with >> 7-STABLE? :) >> >> -- >> >> Best Wishes, >> Stefan Lambrev >> ICQ# 24134177 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Best Wishes, Stefan Lambrev ICQ# 24134177
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?486A3D23.2020100>