On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 9:06 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/04/2018 08:59 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > Where does 68 come from?
>
> Min IPv4 MTU per RFC791
>
What's wrong with using IPV4_MIN_MTU instead of 68
even in just comment?
From: Eric Dumazet
> Sent: 04 December 2018 17:04
> On 12/04/2018 08:59 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Tariq Toukan
> >> Sent: 02 December 2018 12:35
> >> From: Eran Ben Elisha
> >>
> >> NIC driver minimal MTU size shall be set to ETH_MIN_MTU, as defined in
> >> the RFC791 and in the network st
From: Eric Dumazet
> Sent: 04 December 2018 17:04
>
> On 12/04/2018 08:59 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Tariq Toukan
> >> Sent: 02 December 2018 12:35
> >> From: Eran Ben Elisha
> >>
> >> NIC driver minimal MTU size shall be set to ETH_MIN_MTU, as defined in
> >> the RFC791 and in the network
On 12/04/2018 08:59 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Tariq Toukan
>> Sent: 02 December 2018 12:35
>> From: Eran Ben Elisha
>>
>> NIC driver minimal MTU size shall be set to ETH_MIN_MTU, as defined in
>> the RFC791 and in the network stack. Remove old mlx4_en only define for
>> it, which was set
From: Tariq Toukan
> Sent: 02 December 2018 12:35
> From: Eran Ben Elisha
>
> NIC driver minimal MTU size shall be set to ETH_MIN_MTU, as defined in
> the RFC791 and in the network stack. Remove old mlx4_en only define for
> it, which was set to wrong value.
...
>
> - /* MTU range: 46 - hw-s
From: Eran Ben Elisha
NIC driver minimal MTU size shall be set to ETH_MIN_MTU, as defined in
the RFC791 and in the network stack. Remove old mlx4_en only define for
it, which was set to wrong value.
Fixes: b80f71f5816f ("ethernet/mellanox: use core min/max MTU checking")
Signed-off-by: Eran Ben
