From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Add ndo_gso_check Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:41:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20141007214132.GA3181@casper.infradead.org> References: <20141007.163239.157997964784151921.davem@davemloft.net> <20141007.164802.624713385845633192.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, therbert@google.com, jesse@nicira.com, gerlitz.or@gmail.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pshelar@nicira.com, azhou@nicira.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:57583 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754244AbaJGVlg (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:41:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141007.164802.624713385845633192.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/07/14 at 04:48pm, David Miller wrote: > So we have to write new software in _EVERY_ driver to accomodate this. > > That makes zero sense either, and it is unneeded complexity in the > hardware. > > COMPLETE works everywhere, on everything, with no driver changes, and > is so much harder to get wrong. > > Every protocol specific feature has major downsides whether you choose > to see them or not. It's probably not overly bold to state that the behaviour behind CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY was not created for technical reasons in the first place. I enourage NICs to have protocol awareness in the absence of full programmability but I agree with Dave that there is little to no reason to expose anything but the full packet checksum to the CPU.