lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: NETIF_F_SG question
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 02:39:41 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@lumentis.se> wrote:
>
> I think HW checksumming and SG are independent. Either one of them should
> not require the other one in any context.

They should be independent in general, but they aren't when the particular
case of TCP/IPv4 is concerned.

> Zero copy sendfile() does not require HW checksum to do zero copy, right?

Wrong...

> If HW checksum is present, then you get some extra performance as a bonus.

You get zerocopy, yes. :-) No HW cksum, no zerocopy.

Don't let this stop you, however. It's always possible that other networking
stacks will eventually make use of SG while not requiring HW TCP/UDP cksums.
None of them do right now, but...

> (hmm, one could make SG mandatory and the devices that don't support it can
> implement it in their driver. Just an idea)

Not really, that way lies driver madness. The less complexity in the driver,
the better.

Ion
[starfire driver maintainer]

--
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.041 / U:5.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site