From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH] Work around dhclient brokenness Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:36:48 +1000 Message-ID: <200808192136.49038.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <1218829632-19037-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <200808191908.23665.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20080819095613.GA29653@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Chris Wedgwood , Avi Kivity , Anthony Liguori , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Mark McLoughlin To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:45291 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751039AbYHSLjF (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:39:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080819095613.GA29653@gondor.apana.org.au> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday 19 August 2008 19:56:13 Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 07:08:23PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Not really. We could extend the protocol, but that's currently how > > feature negotiation works: you can't do it while the device is live. > > That seemed simplest. I learnt from Xen :) > > > > (Of course, we don't need to *disable* it, we need to *enable* it). > > I don't see why we shouldn't support disabling it. After all, any > NIC that supports receive checksum offload allows it to be disabled. Yes, we might as well support both. But you said we need to disable it, whereas in fact we need to enable it (for this immediate problem). I was being pedantic because some people are getting themselves very confused here :) Rusty.