From: Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@de.ibm.com>
To: Kostya B <bkostya@hotmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: LRO ip_summed
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:45:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200802051045.56654.ossthema@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BAY121-W3321045858D4A665892759B62C0@phx.gbl>
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 09:56, Kostya B wrote:
>
> 1. Let's assume a driver which has a HW csum capability, however it has a privilege to assign any value for ip_summed.
> For example the driver assigns "unnecessary" for most of the packets, however it fails to verify the packets less than 96 bytes ("checksum_none").
> Now, the LRO will aggregate all of them and assign the value "used for all aggregated packets" - that is wrong,
>
> Of course, it is possible to avoid that situation in driver, however [proposal] from the point of view of the *generic* LRO it could be better to check each newly aggregated skb whether it has the same ip_summed as the first one (preserve coherency). Thus, there is no need to keep ip_summed field in the struct net_lro_mgr.
Yes, checking if ip_summed is equal for all aggregated packets would work
for the "aggregating SKB" mode. For the other mode this information is currently
not passed to LRO but could of course be provided as parameter by the driver.
The question is if there is any HW which would benefit from this (meaning multiple
ip_summed values for TCP packets of different sizes) so that this additional
check is really useful. The less required checks the better.
>
> 2. Now, when a skb could not be aggregated (modes: aggregating SKBs) I think where's no need to override its original ip_summed (see "out" label of __lro_proc_skb()) The comment says "Original SKB has to be posted to stack". I would be wrong, but I don't get the reason to possible change of ip_summed.
>
Good point. This assignment seems to be unnecessary.
Regards,
Jan-Bernd
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-05 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-03 9:48 LRO ip_summed Kostya B
2008-02-04 9:14 ` Jan-Bernd Themann
2008-02-05 8:56 ` Kostya B
2008-02-05 9:45 ` Jan-Bernd Themann [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=200802051045.56654.ossthema@de.ibm.com \
--to=ossthema@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bkostya@hotmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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