On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 23:33 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:14:20PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchi...@solarflare.com> > > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:20:46 +0000 > > > > > 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. > > > > I believe this is still undoubtedly the consensus. > > But we don't need to preserve the packets when passing them to macvtap > (which discards all this info smashing the packet into a single buffer > anyway), > correct?
macvtap_skb_to_vnet_hdr() certainly seems to be trying to preserve all the packet information. > If true LRO with macvtap might be useful and so the patchset is probably > still the right thing to do to fix the macvtap crash. Makes sense? If macvtap+virtio_net is expected to re-segment then this is fine. But I don't see why it should be different from other uses of macvlan. > We might want to add code to forward LRO status from macvlan > (not macvtap) back to the lowerdev, so that setting up forwarding > from macvlan disables LRO on the lowerdev, but that seems like another > issue. I think it's the same issue! 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
