On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 07:47:44AM +1000, herbert wrote:
>
> You're being frugal Dave :) I was happy with one skb_clone per
> skb and you're having problems with skb_get? :)
>
> Seriously, we already do one skb_clone for every packet sent
> so we won't be incurring any extra overhead with this.
Nevermind, you're comparing to the existing TSO implementation.
So how big exactly is the slowdown?
> > A secondary point is that I'd like to use a name other than
> > NETIF_F_FRAGLIST because people are super confused as to what this
> > device flag even means. Some people confuse it with NETIF_F_SG,
> > others thing it takes a huge UDP frame and fragments it into MTU sized
> > IP frames and checksums the whole thing. None of which are true.
>
> Fine by me. But you know I'm not good with names :)
This just occured to me, what about NETIF_F_SKBLIST?
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
|