On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 19:18 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 23:34 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > If we want to allow forwarding from LRO then net/ipv4/inet_lro.c also > > needs to set gso_type. > > Then, what is dev_disable_lro() purpose ?
The purpose was to disable LRO when forwarding because they weren't compatible. If the consensus now is that the modifications made by LRO+TSO are acceptable in a bridge/router, then we should get rid of dev_disable_lro() and set both gso_size & gso_type on all LRO receive paths. If the consensus is still that we must preserve packets exactly (aside from the usual modifications by IP routers) then LRO should be disabled on all devices for which forwarding is enabled. (Also, we really ought to keep a count of the number of forwarders and use that in netdev_fix_features(), rather than doing a one-time disable.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 and get the hardware for free! Learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
