On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:22:09 +1000
Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 08:15:31PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
IMHO it is valid to disable SG without disabling checksums, no?
It's useless: The packet header is always in a separate memory
location from the packet data, when using zerocopy sendfile(2).
When not using zerocopy sendfile, you are copying the data _anyway_.
I'm fine with adding this check. However I think that belongs in
another patch since we don't check that in register_netdev currently.
Dave, what do you think?
I believe that allowing TX csum support without SG _is_
useful even though it is not _effective_.
It is quite desirable for a driver author to be able to
test out his TX csum offload support first, then add
SG support next. Similarly, if a driver author suspects
some issues with either SG or TX csum support, he can
better isolate the problem if we allow this.
Jeff do you agree?