From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: sfc: Replace LRO with GRO Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:29:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20090119.132929.108799868.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20090115042422.GB29658@gondor.apana.org.au> <20090118.215027.46669769.davem@davemloft.net> <1232376006.3004.19.camel@achroite> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: bhutchings@solarflare.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:39890 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752684AbZASV31 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:29:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1232376006.3004.19.camel@achroite> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Ben Hutchings Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:40:06 +0000 > On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 21:50 -0800, David Miller wrote: > > From: Herbert Xu > > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:24:22 +1100 > > > > > sfc: Replace LRO with GRO > > > > > > This patch makes sfc invoke the GRO hooks instead of LRO. As > > > GRO has a compatible external interface to LRO this is a very > > > straightforward replacement. > > > > > > Everything should appear identical to the user except that the > > > offload is now controlled by the GRO ethtool option instead of > > > LRO. I've kept the lro module parameter as is since that's for > > > compatibility only. > > > > > > I have eliminated efx_rx_mk_skb as the GRO layer can take care > > > of all packets regardless of whether GRO is enabled or not. > > > > > > So the only case where we don't call GRO is if the packet checksum > > > is absent. This is to keep the behaviour changes of the patch to > > > a minimum. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu > > > > Applied for 2.6.30 > > Please could you push this and other GRO changes for .30 to > net-next-2.6? All of Herbert's bug fixes are going into net-2.6, and that's where they will stay. I haven't published my net-next-2.6 tree at all, because Stephen Rothwell hasn't stated that such content is OK yet for his -next tree.