From: Jan-Bernd Themann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:00:59 +0200
> Hi,
>
> I suggest we keep the interface open for IPv6 support by adding
> an additional parameter but first just get IPv4 support only
> into the kernel. IPv6 support can then incrementially be added.
> Would th
Hi,
I suggest we keep the interface open for IPv6 support by adding
an additional parameter but first just get IPv4 support only
into the kernel. IPv6 support can then incrementially be added.
Would that be ok?
On Sunday 15 July 2007 11:40, David Miller wrote:
> From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAI
From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:12:53 +0100
> I'm not sure that's a good idea. If current chips can't handle ipv6
> lro there is no way to actually test it and the code will surely bitrot.
Christoph, you can do LRO pretty much completely in software.
-
To u
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 11:57:48PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> only request is to make this thing able to handle ipv6 as
> well even if no current chips could facilitate that yet.
I'm not sure that's a good idea. If current chips can't handle ipv6
lro there is no way to actually test it and the
I think this work is great. Thanks for doing it.
Besides the fixups Evgeniy has selected, and the suggestion
to receive into pages to cut down allocation costs, my
only request is to make this thing able to handle ipv6 as
well even if no current chips could facilitate that yet.
-
To unsubscribe
On 7/11/07, Jan-Bernd Themann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Generic Large Receive Offload proposal
I'm very glad that somebody is stepping up to take responsibility
for this!
I'm the primary author of the Myricom Myri10GE driver, and its LRO mechanism
(which has been rejected several times when p
6 matches
Mail list logo
