lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls
David Miller wrote:
> From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>

>> I believe LRO is going to have to be disabled for routing/bridging,
>> so the stack will probably need to become aware of it at some point...
>
> The packet will be GSO'd on output I believe, so it won't
> break anything.
>
> Alternatively, we could make the driver only LRO accumulate if the
> packet is unicast and matches one of the MAC's programmed into the
> chip.

I think even this would fail if you are doing something clever with
NAT or other iptables stuff. Probably we're going to have to put this
in the hands of the users..who hopefully can determine whether they
can allow LRO or not...

For GSO on output, is there a generic fallback for any driver that
does not specifically implement GSO?

Thanks,
Ben

--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-11 00:43    [W:0.305 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site