On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:15:13 -0400 (EDT), David Miller wrote: > From: Jakub Kicinski <kubak...@wp.pl> > Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:00:27 +0100 > > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:49:54 -0400 (EDT), David Miller wrote: > >> From: Jakub Kicinski <kubak...@wp.pl> > >> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:20:06 +0100 > >> > >> > Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like we are now limiting > >> > _all_ ethernet drivers to ETH_DATA_LEN in net-next. > >> > >> No, because the driver can increase the netdev->max_mtu value as needed. > > > > But since almost no driver is doing that, yet, right now in net-next > > jumbo frames are not possible, no? I thought the idea was the leave > > the value at 0 so drivers can opt-in as needed but since setup_ether() > > is initializing to 1500 now all ethernet driver get a default of > > limiting to 1500. > > > > IOW this patch made checks which were done only in eth_change_mtu() > > mandatory for all drivers. > > The conversions he made were in cases where the driver's method was doing > exactly the same thing eth_change_mtu() does not. > > He strictly worked to keep the behavior identical compared to before his > changes, please read his patches carefully.
Hm. I must be missing something really obvious. I just booted net-next an hour ago and couldn't set MTU to anything larger than 1500 on either nfp or igb. As far as I can read the code it will set the max_mtu to 1500 in setup_ether() but none of the jumbo-capable drivers had been touched by Jarod so far...
