On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Yuval Mintz <yuval.mi...@qlogic.com> wrote: >>We already know of one firmware bug you guys have which makes >>it clear that the bnx2x is not doing hardware assisted GRO it is doing >>something else since it performs much worse than GRO if the MSS is >>less than what it would be based on the MTU. > > It's a bit nitpicky, isn't it? Claiming this flaw means it's not GRO. > I.e., you obviously wouldn't have claimed it beacme GRO if it > was fixed. > > Not saying it makes a lot of difference, though.
The fact is LRO and GRO are two separate things. Even without the bug in the firmware I would still be saying the are two very different things. Your GRO implementation only supports a subset of the features that GRO has in the hardware. The way the kernel has implemented things we should keep GRO and GSO symmetric if at all possible. There aren't currently any GSO hardware offloads so there probably shouldn't be any GRO hardware offloads. On the other hand devices do support TSO hardware offloads so it would make sense to match that up and support LRO as the hardware equivalent of GRO. Anyway that is my opinion. It may be nitpicky but I don't fee that we should be re-purposing feature bits that were meant to be software features to represent hardware ones. - Alex