From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: Translation table available between 'ethtool -k' and 'ethtool -K' ? For Linux? Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:05:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20141120.230507.1288958595564653550.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1416526354.7215.4.camel@decadent.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ben@decadent.org.uk, Spike_White@dell.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: therbert@google.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:51913 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751368AbaKUEFJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:05:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Tom Herbert Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:07:44 -0800 > Ben I'm not sure I see this. If we turn off HW offloads and rely on > the software offloads where is the increased risk? This may result in > performance degradation for sure, but I really hope at this point that > the software offload mechanisms in the stack are as least as robust as > any HW mechanism. It means you're testing a configuration different from %99 of users (who are not changing the defaults). You are by definition testing code paths with less overall global testing coverage.