From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [RFC v2] mac80211: assign needed_headroom/tailroom for netdevs Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 19:57:34 +0200 Message-ID: <1210010254.4181.4.camel@johannes.berg> References: <1209936253.7304.10.camel@johannes.berg> <1209936745.7304.16.camel@johannes.berg> <20080504.173051.133197507.davem@davemloft.net> <1209972139.3655.9.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240805050727r2060b0b4x3a9b3240647b66b1@mail.gmail.com> <1210000923.8245.26.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240805051015t7dfd3bd2nf7bc2fc1ab9799ca@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080505_191442_671116_FFB94097) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-BGorA4iwPX8fchrbzD/q" Cc: David Miller , linville@tuxdriver.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org To: Tomas Winkler Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:38273 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751125AbYEER63 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 13:58:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1ba2fa240805051015t7dfd3bd2nf7bc2fc1ab9799ca@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080505_191442_671116_FFB94097) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-BGorA4iwPX8fchrbzD/q Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > I would set NETIF_F_SG OR FRAGLIS to features...? (What actually is > the difference?) Do you support TCP checksumming in hardware? -> no SG NETIF_F_FRAGLIST I haven't understood, but it seems to apply mostly for IP fragmentation? > but even when it does I > > don't see what we can do unless we want to do all this inside mac80211 > > which I'd rather not. >=20 > Like Sending mac80211 header OOB as xmit function argument? This will > probably affect all the wme code as well... > Not good. Yep. > Isn't this a requirement that header fits into a continuous buffer ? which header? The SKB header (skb->data .. skb->tail (skb->head..skb->end)) or the 802.11/device header? > It's sounds strange to me that there is no solution for efficient > bridging... Can bridging code handle this if we have native interface? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. johannes --=-BGorA4iwPX8fchrbzD/q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIVAwUASB9KjKVg1VMiehFYAQLDhhAAxcv2mWWb1tdm6QEev54NGNr8xXIn1jlC Ggc71zCD4kZRxBsLn6+fD0gxqYVxMWb+61X+dQyK34YR+lSpnJARqNtlz3uceyUU 461KqPsAQSu0ZShCDtk2xu6DNqBfjz6s/3V6ccDho/fmuMTHmtbIESpmxgBUJHlV hYjV/Lnattiz4IMCPF7FGwla5zOB/0xI6msbjSDDKU0npmyJO6SWuesmpIXaKUKS OKuKKFYqJ1gqhDApYuy0mH7tWDgBIaPyOxpIxyOcMQJ3iP+1DU/lrSvAn84YItxZ IocI87KEk3RCtKm+uTwj7C6ZHo36xwqwt4O77i5kKBuawmIuMM4GWvBGBBPBmpIj kyryxQ2eoSKjSLustXM0BihKWkwjmpMTyzZXp1SCeyAJerW/pTF6V6/ESBKt8hpa 1xIhoGvqkVPYjixio40rUmkV6Z2s3ARCdJ3R/yPmzXG4DixgBDJLKKVz5Einu4EB KE0YcFzU1uZtlekcna180VC3Sv70DxZE2boEyQc4dfY1tVzlPN8gRd510z+BvQu4 n7vpa5N2gpNTuzEBApahxksDV/gQFhD6JseV0RqUAuio/qdNcdzJJ+4ca4vEO2Zk jyrN7vRqLJY05YUcDf1DhQXUv8gXZe3QTIKBCSALm4gNi5tpSwyDq5GchGJwmdUd Dkhij3y4NIs= =lZAD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-BGorA4iwPX8fchrbzD/q--