Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:11:24 -0700

> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> > This patch copies Auke in adding NETIF_F_LRO.  Is that just for 
> > temporary merging, or does the net core really not touch it at all?
> > 
> > Because, logically, if NETIF_F_LRO exists nowhere else but this patch, 
> > we should not add it to dev->features.  LRO knowledge can be contained 
> > entirely within the driver, if the net core never tests NETIF_F_LRO.
> > 
> > I haven't reviewed the other NETIF_F_XXX flags, but, that logic can be 
> > applied to any other NETIF_F_XXX flag:  if the net stack isn't using it, 
> > it's a piece of information specific to that driver.
> 
> 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.
-
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/