Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:35:28 +0200
From:      Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>
To:        Scott Long <scottl@samsco.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:  <466DA400.6000003@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <466D9D94.1020908@samsco.org>
References:  <200706111459.l5BExvTp020932@repoman.freebsd.org> <466D9BBB.1060601@freebsd.org> <466D9D94.1020908@samsco.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long wrote:
> 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.

I'm blocking nothing.  Read again what I wrote.  I complained about
a technically wrong approach to solve a particular side problem.  In
the meantime it got backed out because someone else complained too.

-- 
Andre




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?466DA400.6000003>