On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:37 AM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <han...@stressinduktion.org>
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:43:35 +0100
>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 18:32, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> As you said this in only feedback and nobody is forcing anyone to do
>>> anything. But encouraging HW vendors to provide generic mechanisms so
>>> that your users can use whatever protocol they want is the exact
>>> _opposite_ of punishing users, this is very much a pro-user direction.
>>
>> Some users will suffer worse performance in case we don't correctly set
>> ip_summed for a specific protocol before we do the copy operations from
>> user space into skbs but if they are always done in the driver.
>
> Your concern presumes that looking backwards is as important as looking
> forward.
>
> We want to simplify things _and_ move away from protocol specific
> csums, and if some old crufty hardware based systems pay some performance
> cost for this I say so be it.
>
> So this is not a valid argument against Tom's changes in my mind.
>
And for that matter these arguments have nothing to do with these UDP
encapsulation patches at all, they seem to be directed to the patches
to eliminate NETIF_F_IP{V6}_CSUM so please post on that thread.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
