| To: | niv@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Ethernet Bridging: Enable Hardware Checksumming |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 19 May 2005 11:51:41 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jdmason@xxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <428CAC55.4000202@us.ibm.com> |
| References: | <E1DYayB-0005Sk-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au> <428CAC55.4000202@us.ibm.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Nivedita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 08:10:13 -0700 > Fair point - though I would argue that devices that > support SG are much more common now - so optimizing > for the more common case might be preferable - since > people using bridging with devices that support > checksum offload are taking quite a hit when they > do bridging - perhaps this could be a conditional? I disagree. Many low costs devices are non-SG still, there is no reason to penalize them explicitly. I think instead we should look at ways to propagate the hardware device features to the bridge. Even if a bridge is composed of multiple devices, we just advertise the subset of features actually supported. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.12-rc4-mm[12] - ULOG problem, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] [BRIDGE] Set features based on slave's ones, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Ethernet Bridging: Enable Hardware Checksumming, Nivedita Singhvi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Ethernet Bridging: Enable Hardware Checksumming, Nivedita Singhvi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |