From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: ben@decadent.org.uk, bruce.w.allan@intel.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, gospo@redhat.com, sassmann@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next] e1000e: remove use of IP payload checksum
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:32:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1341120759.2632.25.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120630.173752.1993136000245136259.davem@davemloft.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1889 bytes --]
On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 17:37 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:36:36 +0100
>
> > On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 03:35 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> >> From: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com>
> >>
> >> Currently only used when packet split mode is enabled with jumbo frames,
> >> IP payload checksum (for fragmented UDP packets) is mutually exclusive with
> >> receive hashing offload since the hardware uses the same space in the
> >> receive descriptor for the hardware-provided packet checksum and the RSS
> >> hash, respectively. Users currently must disable jumbos when receive
> >> hashing offload is enabled, or vice versa, because of this incompatibility.
> >> Since testing has shown that IP payload checksum does not provide any real
> >> benefit, just remove it so that there is no longer a choice between jumbos
> >> or receive hashing offload but not both as done in other Intel GbE drivers
> >> (e.g. e1000, igb).
> >>
> >> Also, add a missing check for IP checksum error reported by the hardware;
> >> let the stack verify the checksum when this happens.
> > [...]
> >
> > The change to enable RX hashing in 3.4, with this odd restriction seems
> > to have broken most existing systems using jumbo MTU on e1000e. None of
> > the distro scripts or network management daemons will automatically
> > change offload configuration before MTU; how could they know?
> >
> > Therefore this needs to be fixed in 3.5 and 3.4.y, not net-next.
>
> Agreed.
Ok, I will prepare it for net and stable 3.4. I know it will require a
backported patch for stable 3.4.y since the current patch only applied
to net & net-next.
Bruce was wanting to have it applied to net & stable, and I was not sure
based on the patch content and description, so I that is why I submitted
it for net-next.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-01 5:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-30 10:35 [net-next] e1000e: remove use of IP payload checksum Jeff Kirsher
2012-06-30 21:36 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-01 0:37 ` David Miller
2012-07-01 5:32 ` Jeff Kirsher [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1341120759.2632.25.camel@jtkirshe-mobl \
--to=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \
--cc=bruce.w.allan@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gospo@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sassmann@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).