From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: NETIF_F_FRAGLIST and NETIF_F_SG difference Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:51:58 +0000 Message-ID: <1267498318.2819.21.camel@localhost> References: <1267448321.2819.15.camel@localhost> <20100301.174024.214216263.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mekaviraj@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from exchange.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:12175 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753048Ab0CBCwD (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:52:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100301.174024.214216263.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 17:40 -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Hutchings > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:58:41 +0000 > > > (I don't know why there are two ways of adding extra data. The latter > > does not seem to be used often.) > > It's the most efficient way to handle IPv4/IPv6 fragmentation and > reassembly. But fragmentation results in a series of packets to be transmitted separately (not gathered) and reassembly is only done at endpoints. So when would we see a fragment list on the transmit path? 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.