From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
