From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: sfc: Replace LRO with GRO Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:40:06 +0000 Message-ID: <1232376006.3004.19.camel@achroite> References: <20090113092625.GA28015@gondor.apana.org.au> <20090115042422.GB29658@gondor.apana.org.au> <20090118.215027.46669769.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk ([212.23.3.140]:57399 "EHLO smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1749667AbZASOkO (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:40:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090118.215027.46669769.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 21:50 -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Herbert Xu > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:24:22 +1100 > > > sfc: Replace LRO with GRO > > > > This patch makes sfc invoke the GRO hooks instead of LRO. As > > GRO has a compatible external interface to LRO this is a very > > straightforward replacement. > > > > Everything should appear identical to the user except that the > > offload is now controlled by the GRO ethtool option instead of > > LRO. I've kept the lro module parameter as is since that's for > > compatibility only. > > > > I have eliminated efx_rx_mk_skb as the GRO layer can take care > > of all packets regardless of whether GRO is enabled or not. > > > > So the only case where we don't call GRO is if the packet checksum > > is absent. This is to keep the behaviour changes of the patch to > > a minimum. > > > > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu > > Applied for 2.6.30 Please could you push this and other GRO changes for .30 to net-next-2.6? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.