From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/12] virtio_net perf patches
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:28:28 -0500
Message-ID: <48A1D64C.6000406@codemonkey.ws>
References: <1218485535-877-1-git-send-email-markmc@redhat.com>	 <48A0A152.6070405@codemonkey.ws> <1218564748.29159.18.camel@muff>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-gx0-f29.google.com ([209.85.217.29]:36566 "EHLO
	mail-gx0-f29.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751189AbYHLS3K (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:29:10 -0400
Received: by gxk10 with SMTP id 10so136046gxk.13
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1218564748.29159.18.camel@muff>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Yes, I've been through this before. See:
>
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/231444
>
> So, we've had this long-standing dhclient patch in Fedora:
>
>   http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/rpms/dhcp/devel/dhcp-4.0.0-xen-checksum.patch
>
> Herbert - any clue why this isn't upstream? That's quite surprising ...
>   

I've confirmed that it's not in any of the upstream releases.  However, 
dhcp has a weird model where you have to pay a membership fee to have 
access to the CVS repository or development mailing list?

I'm not sure what's the best way to proceed.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Ah, I see Rusty moved this to linux-netdev without cc-ing:
>
>   http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=121844837826895
>
> Herbert wrote:
>
>   "One easy way of doing this is to hook up the rx checksum offload
>    option in the guest with the tx offload option in the host.  In
>    other words, when rx offload is enabled in the guest we enable
>    tx offload in the host, and disable it vice versa."
>
> Are you basically just saying that guests with a "broken" dhclient
> should manually disable rx checksum offload with ethtool? And that the
> host should react by disabling tx offload on the tap interfacE?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
>