From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [RFC 0/0] Introducing a generic socket offload framework Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:32:35 -0400 Message-ID: <1313850755.1734.724.camel@mojatatu> References: <20110818220756.5C93E5C80B@san.sea.corp.google.com> <1313758185.16299.43.camel@mojatatu> Reply-To: jhs@mojatatu.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@davemloft.net, mst@redhat.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, digitaleric@google.com, mikew@google.com, miche@google.com, maccarro@google.com To: San Mehat Return-path: Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:64660 "EHLO mail-yx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752083Ab1HTOck (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:32:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 07:58 -0700, San Mehat wrote: > Can you explain a good use-case for SOCK_RAW in this type of > environment? We were noodling it around locally and couldn't come up > with one that we needed to support. One that comes to mind is the case of Samir's app: youd need to handle some of the apps that ride on top of IP typically using SOCK_RAW eg ping, OSPF essentially anything on IP that doesnt have transport built into kernel etc; > > Q: If you want this to be transparent to the apps, who/what is doing > > the tagging of SOCK_HWASSIST? clearly not the app if you dont want to > > change it. > > The decision of whether to tag a socket or not is made by the 'hardware' As in some config interface? cheers, jamal