From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] tcp: Add GRO support Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:10:19 +0300 Message-ID: <20081213031019.GE807@ioremap.net> References: <20081212053116.GA2927@gondor.apana.org.au> <20081212195615.GC27281@ioremap.net> <20081212214627.GC11046@gondor.apana.org.au> <20081213024046.GB807@ioremap.net> <20081213024644.GB14056@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from intermatrixgroup.ru ([195.178.208.66]:54714 "EHLO tservice.net.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751880AbYLMDKU (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:10:20 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081213024644.GB14056@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 01:46:45PM +1100, Herbert Xu (herbert@gondor.apana.org.au) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 05:40:46AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > > So it will fail if timestamp changed? Or if some new option added? > > Correct, it must remain exactly the same. Even at 100Mbps any > sane clock frequency will result in an average of 8 packets per > clock update. At the sort speeds (>1Gbps) at which we're targetting > this'll easily get us to 64K which is our maximum (actually it > looks like I forgot to add a check to stop this from growing beyond > 64K :) Some stacks use just increased counter since it is allowed by the RFC :) Probably 'not sane' is appropriate name, but still... Probably not a serious problem, but what if just check the timestamp option before/after like it was in LRO? -- Evgeniy Polyakov