Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:46:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cheetah.davemloft.net (mail@adsl-63-197-226-105.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.197.226.105])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0M4kikb010482
	for <netdev@oss.sgi.com>; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:46:45 -0800
Received: from localhost
	([127.0.0.1] helo=cheetah.davemloft.net ident=davem)
	by cheetah.davemloft.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 1CsD8E-00010p-00; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:44:18 -0800
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:44:18 -0800
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same
 yes?
Message-Id: <20050121204418.2070d76d.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <41F18927.5020607@hp.com>
References: <41F1516D.5010101@hp.com>
	<200501211358.53783.jdmason@us.ibm.com>
	<41F163AD.5070400@hp.com>
	<20050121124441.76cbbfb9.davem@davemloft.net>
	<41F17B7E.2020002@hp.com>
	<20050121141820.7d59a2d1.davem@davemloft.net>
	<41F186A8.9030805@hp.com>
	<41F18927.5020607@hp.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; sparc-unknown-linux-gnu)
X-Face: "_;p5u5aPsO,_Vsx"^v-pEq09'CU4&Dc1$fQExov$62l60cgCc%FnIwD=.UF^a>?5'9Kn[;433QFVV9M..2eN.@4ZWPGbdi<=?[:T>y?SD(R*-3It"Vj:)"dP
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/650/Sun Jan  2 19:00:02 2005
	clamav-milter version 0.80j
	on 127.0.0.1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-archive-position: 634
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
X-original-sender: davem@davemloft.net
Precedence: bulk
X-list: netdev

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:58:47 -0800
Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> wrote:

> Speaking of divisor values... is zero (0) supposed to be a legal value?  The 
> sysctl seems to allow it but it does seem to behave a triffle strangely.  The 
> initial TSO size appeared to be 2MSS.

The value "0" behaves the same as "1".