Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: add support for receive hashing

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:19:31 -0700

> As a networking guy I can see why it seems baffling, but stepping out
> of myself and thinking like the customers with whom I've interacted
> over the years, it is not baffling at all.

<sarcasm>
And hey nobody is using SCTP either, that's right, nobody...
</sarcasm>

Look, don't try to defend this abomination of a situation with some
"customers only use TCP" argument.  It only makes the situation look
even more absurd.  

Furthermore, people test system scalability using tools like pktgen,
which surprise surprise generates streams of UDP packets.  Most
hardware based scalability testers spew UDP too.

Everything in the world points to "this toeplitz hash situation is
stupid an inexcusable."

If UDP isn't used by anyone, then you tell me why the checksum engines
of all of these chips can handle them just fine.  Maybe the guy who
works on the checksum logic blocks doesn't talk to the guy who works
on the hashing ones?  Maybe the checksum guy can find the ports in a
UDP packet, but the hashing dude can't locate them?

What the heck do you think people use for various forms of media
streaming?  They often use UDP and it has to scale, and they'd like to
move to DCCP at some point too which is another argument for a fully
protocol agnostic hash.

Why do you think Eric Dumazet gives a crap about UDP scalability and
is constantly testing it?  What about VOIP?  H.323, RTP, etc.?

Some of these cards can even statelessly offload UDP fragmentation
too, in silicon, not even in firmware.  What's their excuse for
screwing up the hash?

Look, this is a complete joke from every angle, at least admit that
fact.