| To: | Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Allow IP header alignment to be overriden |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:12:18 -0700 |
| Cc: | sfeldma@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040611142336.GE27672@krispykreme> |
| References: | <20040611012727.GA27672@krispykreme> <20040610223549.5e9ad025.davem@redhat.com> <1086939562.3657.10.camel@sfeldma-mobl2.dsl-verizon.net> <20040611142336.GE27672@krispykreme> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:23:37 +1000 Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Would creating: > > /* > * Network drivers want to align IP headers. Since we have 14 bytes of > * ethernet header, adding 2 bytes will align the IP header. However > * this will mean we do unaligned DMA so there is a trade off. > * > * We allow this to be overridden per arch as the unaligned DMA cost may > * outweigh the unaligned CPU cost. > */ > #ifndef NET_IP_ALIGN > #define NET_IP_ALIGN 2 > #endif > > Instead of skb_align make more sense? It does have the advantage of > removing another magic number. Yes. Please add a paragraph to that comment explaining what "unaligned CPU cost" really means, ie. that the IP/TCP header members are going to be accessed with alignment less than the types might require on a given architecture. Then I'll apply this and we can start beating up the drivers. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Allow IP header alignment to be overriden, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: UDP sockets bound to ANY send answers with wrong src ip address, Denis Vlasenko |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Allow IP header alignment to be overriden, Anton Blanchard |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Allow IP header alignment to be overriden, Anton Blanchard |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |