Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:08:04 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys mbuf.h src/sys/net if_ethersubr.c src/sys/dev/mxge mxge_lro.c Message-ID: <466D9D94.1020908@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <466D9BBB.1060601@freebsd.org> References: <200706111459.l5BExvTp020932@repoman.freebsd.org> <466D9BBB.1060601@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andre Oppermann wrote: > Andrew Gallatin wrote: >> gallatin 2007-06-11 14:59:56 UTC >> >> FreeBSD src repository >> >> Modified files: >> sys/sys mbuf.h sys/net >> if_ethersubr.c sys/dev/mxge mxge_lro.c Log: >> Allow drivers, such as cxgb and mxge, which support LRO to bypass >> the MTU check in ether_input() on LRO merged frames. >> Discussed with: kmacy > > Not discussed with: andre > > Your change isn't the right way to make this work. LRO is an interface > capability (that should have the option to disable it) and the test in > ether_input() should go on that instead. LRO is not an information > that is needed beyond ether_input() and thus doesn't have to be a mbuf > flag. > > I've indicated that I'm working in this area as well and at least > dropping an email or a ping IRC would have been nice. I would have > told you the above right away. My common version of LRO isn't ready > yet as I'm a bit short on time and I chose to concentrate on TCP it- > self. We only have to make sure that we don't exclude a common LRO > implementation due to API/ABI issues for 7.1R. > Drew's commit looks simple and non-obtrusive enough that it can likely be replaced once your perfected LRO implementation is done and in the tree. Until that happens, I can't imagine a good reason to block his and Kip's work. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?466D9D94.1020908>