Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:30:46 -0700 From: "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net if.h Message-ID: <2a41acea0706111330v6a39cf84o495f6acf62ba7ff7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <466DACD6.4040606@errno.com> References: <200706112008.l5BK8CQ7033543@repoman.freebsd.org> <466DACD6.4040606@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/11/07, Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> wrote: > Andre Oppermann wrote: > > andre 2007-06-11 20:08:12 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/net if.h > > Log: > > Add IFCAP_LRO flag for drivers to announce their TCP Large Receive Offload > > capabilities. > > > > Revision Changes Path > > 1.108 +1 -0 src/sys/net/if.h > > http://cvsweb.FreeBSD.org/src/sys/net/if.h.diff?r1=1.107&r2=1.108 > > > > > There are many offload capabilities defined that are not well thought > out. In particular we do not distinguish between ipv4 and ipv6 for > things like cksum and tso so there's no way to disable individual > features. The ability to tweak LRO is clearly needed and clearly belong > as an ifnet capability but unilateraly deciding this is the wrong approach. > > Sam We do distinguish between TSO4 and TSO6, its just that all the pieces for 6 arent actually there yet, you are right about the cksum granularity, but I'm not convinced its needed. You might be right on the need to fine tune the functionality, but having a big ON/OFF doesnt seem a bad thing to me. Jack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2a41acea0706111330v6a39cf84o495f6acf62ba7ff7>