Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\s+2\.6\.10\s+5\/22\]\s+xfrm\:\s+Attempt\s+to\s+offload\s+bundled\s+xfrm

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\s+2\.6\.10\s+5\/22\]\s+xfrm\:\s+Attempt\s+to\s+offload\s+bundled\s+xfrm_states\s+for\s+outbound\s+xfrms\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes? (score: 1): Author: S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:20:45 -0800; mple, via xfrm_user.c:xfrm_add_sa(); /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg00979.html (8,486 bytes)
2. 2] xfrm: Try to offload inbound xfrm_states (score: 1): Author: avid S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:53:01 -0500; d hook into net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg00988.html (9,211 bytes)
3. drivers to force recalculation of offloads (score: 1): Author: ller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:11:54 -0800; o the pending 2.6.11 tree.; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01138.html (8,782 bytes)
4. of offloaded tasks (score: 1): Author: low <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:48:35 -0500; xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> diff -Nru a/drivers/net/typhoon.c b/drivers/net/typhoon.c -- a/drivers/net/typhoon.c 2004-12-30 01; /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg00839.html (13,275 bytes)
5. se of skb->protocol (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:34:43 +0100; f Lennert Buytenhek: Hi Lennert, is still in the IP stack. I don't know what happens with it after the IP stack is finished with the packet. The comment in skb; /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg00898.html (12,002 bytes)
6. ilter extension API (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:31:07 -0500; : +int +tcf_exts_validate(struct tcf_proto *tp, struct rtattr **tb, + struct rtattr *rate_tlv, struct tcf_exts *exts, + struct tcf_ext_map *map) +{ + memset(ex; /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg00903.html (12,324 bytes)
7. Re: [RFC 2.6.10 5/22] xfrm: Attempt to offload bundled xfrm_states for outbound xfrms (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:20:45 -0800; netif_running() is only steady while the RTNL semaphore is held, which is not necessarily true when xfrm_lookup() is invoked.; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02469.html (8,645 bytes)
8. Re: [RFC 2.6.10 5/22] xfrm: Attempt to offload bundled xfrm_states for outbound xfrms (score: 1): Author: David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:53:01 -0500; I've been reworking this area already to add the ability for the user to control which devices/states combinations can be offloaded, so this code will change. What do you think about just having the; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02478.html (9,391 bytes)
9. Re: [RFC 2.6.10 5/22] xfrm: Attempt to offload bundled xfrm_states for outbound xfrms (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:11:54 -0800; That would be fine. Good catch, hmmm... let me think about this case.; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02628.html (8,989 bytes)
10. [RFC 2.6.10 5/22] xfrm: Attempt to offload bundled xfrm_states for outbound xfrms (score: 1): Author: David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:48:35 -0500; Signed-off-by: David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg01790.html (13,300 bytes)
11. Re: [RFC 2.6.10 5/22] xfrm: Attempt to offload bundled xfrm_states for outbound xfrms (score: 1): Author: Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:34:43 +0100; David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> : [...] If the driver knows the max depth which is allowed, why not have it allocate its own bundle-like struct during initialization one for once ? Instead of push; /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg01849.html (12,077 bytes)
12. Re: [RFC 2.6.10 5/22] xfrm: Attempt to offload bundled xfrm_states for outbound xfrms (score: 1): Author: David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:31:07 -0500; Good idea! I'll see if I can't code it up. I definitely want to get rid of that GFP_ATOMIC allocation. -- David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg01854.html (12,432 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]