From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCH] ethtool: command line support for lro Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:07:07 +0000 Message-ID: <20080310180706.GF12660@solarflare.com> References: <1204898997.4220.41.camel@moonstone.uk.level5networks.com> <20080307082538.1a674ae1@extreme> <1204909575.4220.71.camel@moonstone.uk.level5networks.com> <20080307134312.037e2cf6@extreme> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Kieran Mansley , Jeff Garzik , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from rutherford.zen.co.uk ([212.23.3.142]:52178 "EHLO rutherford.zen.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753742AbYCJSHL (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:07:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080307134312.037e2cf6@extreme> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Stephen Hemminger wrote: > Add lro support to command in similar manner to TSO, GSO, etc. > The file ethtool-copy.h is updated to be sanitised version of > ethtool.h from 2.6.25-rc4 (ie make headers_install) I already posted a patch to do this, though I didn't update ethtool-copy.h. > Not tested on actual LRO hardware. Mine was, and this looks very similar. > @@ -1559,12 +1566,20 @@ static int do_goffload(int fd, struct ifreq *ifr) > allfail = 0; > } > > + eval.cmd = ETHTOOL_GFLAGS; > + ifr->ifr_data = (caddr_t)&eval; > + err = ioctl(fd, SIOCETHTOOL, ifr); > + if (!err) { > + lro = eval.data & ETH_FLAG_LRO; > + allfail = 0; > + } > + To be consistent, this should print a specific error if the ioctl fails. > @@ -1641,6 +1656,30 @@ static int do_soffload(int fd, struct ifreq *ifr) > return 90; > } > } > + if (off_lro_wanted >= 0) { > + changed = 1; > + eval.cmd = ETHTOOL_GFLAGS; > + eval.data = 0; > + ifr->ifr_data = (caddr_t)&eval; > + err = ioctl(fd, SIOCETHTOOL, ifr); > + if (err) { > + perror("Cannot get device flag settings"); > + return 90; > + } I didn't bother fetching the existing flags because only ETH_FLAG_LRO is defined. But this would be more future-proof. > + > + eval.cmd = ETHTOOL_SFLAGS; > + if (off_lro_wanted == 1) > + eval.data |= ETH_FLAG_LRO; > + else > + eval.data &= ~ETH_FLAG_LRO; > + > + err = ioctl(fd, SIOCETHTOOL, ifr); > + if (err) { > + perror("Cannot set large receive offload settings"); > + return 90; > + } The error return codes are unique so far, so these error paths should return 91 and 92, not 90. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.