Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:05:04 +0200

> So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?

Because it's more efficient to copy into a linear destination
buffer of an SKB than page sub-chunks when doing checksum+copy.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
    • From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
    • From: David Miller <[email protected]>
  • Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
    • From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 000 of 4] Introduction
• Next by Date: Re: [patch 2/5] mm: fault vs invalidate/truncate race fix
• Previous by thread: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
• Next by thread: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]