From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH] [BRIDGE] Set features based on slave's ones Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 14:07:04 -0500 Message-ID: <200505191407.04650.jdmason@us.ibm.com> References: <200505191106.53136.jdmason@us.ibm.com> <200505191247.55138.jdmason@us.ibm.com> <20050519.115832.111205328.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: util@deuroconsult.ro, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20050519.115832.111205328.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thursday 19 May 2005 01:58 pm, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Jon Mason > Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:47:55 -0500 > > > My point is that some features the user might want enabled regardless of > > whether all devices support them. An example of this is where a system > > has hardware checksum support for all devices except one. In this case, > > it would be benefitial to have this device do the checksum in software > > (via skb_checksum_help() call in dev_queue_xmit()). > > If "SG and checksumming is so common these days" as others have > stated, what you are describing is a totally uncommon scenerio. Uncommon, yes, but very possible and I am trying to mitigate the performance effects of this case. > What > Catalin is proposing is infinitely better than what we have today. I completely agree Catalin's patch is better than what we have now. My only arguement is that there are some cases where it should be augmented to include additional features.