On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 10:04 AM Cindy Lu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 9:18 AM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 09:04:20 +0800 Jason Wang wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 7:28 AM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 14:17:55 +0800 Cindy Lu wrote: > > > > > Subject: [PATCH RESEND] netvsc: transfer lower device max tso size > > > > > > > > You say RESEND but I don't see a link to previous posting anywhere. > > > > Someone should respond to this part, please. > > > Hi Jakub, > sorry for the confusion. I previously sent this mail > (https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/) > to the wrong mailing list, so I'm resended it here. > I've also submitted a v2 of this patch: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > Sorry again for the mix-up. > thanks > > cindy > > > > > I'd rather we didn't extend the magic behavior of hyperv/netvsc any > > > > further. > > > > > > Are you referring to the netdev coupling model of the VF acceleration? > > > > Yes, it tries to apply whole bunch of policy automatically in > > the kernel. > > > > > > We have enough problems with it. > > > > > > But this fixes a real problem, otherwise nested VM performance will be > > > broken due to the GSO software segmentation. > > > > Perhaps, possibly, a migration plan can be devised, away from the > > netvsc model, so we don't have to deal with nuggets of joy like: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
I'm also including Stephen Hemminger and Long Li in this thread and would greatly appreciate any suggestions. Thanks cindy > >
