[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: NETIF_F_SG question
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > You get zerocopy, yes. :-) No HW cksum, no zerocopy.
> >
> > OK, but it should be easy to remove HW cksum as a condition to do zerocopy?
> Nope. You're looking at this the wrong way: the goal is not zero copy, but
> zero data access by CPU. Once you realize that, it's clear that SG alone
> is no good.
> This is not necessarily the only approach, but it is the current approach
> in the Linux IPv4 stack. It's not worth the effort to re-engineer the code
> in order to support the fast-disappearing hardware which supports SG but
> not cksums.

> > zerocopy without requiring HW cksums only OR could for instance the forwarding
> > procdure also benefit from SG without requiring HW cksums?
> The forwarding procedure is already dealing with linear buffers because
> 99.99% of the network cards on the market receive packets into one linear
> buffer. So again SG is useless for that.

I see, thanks for your patience with me.

> Ion

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.048 / U:0.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site