> On 7 Jun 2023, at 06:33, Vitaliy Makkoveev <m...@openbsd.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6 Jun 2023, at 20:29, Alexander Bluhm <alexander.bl...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 05:54:31PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 02:31:52PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest to rename ifconfig tcprecvoffload to tcplro. Maybe
>>>> it's just because I had to type that long name too often.
>>>>
>>>> With that we have consistent naming:
>>>> # ifconfig ix0 tcplro
>>>> # sysctl net.inet.tcp.tso=1
>>>>
>>>> Also the coresponding flag are named LRO.
>>>> # ifconfig ix1 hwfeatures
>>>> ix1: flags=2008843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,LRO> mtu 1500
>>>>
>>>> hwfeatures=71b7<CSUM_IPv4,CSUM_TCPv4,CSUM_UDPv4,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,CSUM_TCPv6,CSUM_UDPv6,TSOv4,TSOv6,LRO>
>>>> hardmtu 9198
>>>>
>>>> The feature is quite new, so I have no backward compatiblity concerns.
>>>>
>>>> ok?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could you name it "lro" like FreeBSD uses?
>>
>> When I started with this, LRO and TSO were unknown to me. So with
>> TCP prefix it may be clearer to users where the feature belongs.
>>
>> Naming is hard.
>
> Yeah, naming is definitely hard. I propose to use lro because it is
> already used for the same purpose by FreeBSD, so the same name helps
> to avoid confusion.
>
> lro If the driver supports tcp(4) large receive offloading,
> enable LRO on the interface.
>
> Also, we have used "tso" keyword for tcp segmentation offloading for
> the same reason, until it became global net.inet.tcp.tso.
Is it going to be used to enable lro for udp and other protocols as well?
