From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 21:45:09 -0800 Message-ID: <566279E5.9070500@gmail.com> References: <1449158374.11080.456996721.69F803D7@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1449259145.6236.458303617.55CF2C4E@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20151204.150633.1744714566987717806.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , Hannes Frederic Sowa , John Linville , Jesse Gross , Anjali Singhai Jain , Netdev , Kiran Patil To: Tom Herbert Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:35489 "EHLO mail-pa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750950AbbLEFpO (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Dec 2015 00:45:14 -0500 Received: by pacej9 with SMTP id ej9so97272307pac.2 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 21:45:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/04/2015 04:53 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> I actually tried to push the generic checksum idea for fm10k back >> during hardware development but ended up losing that battle. The >> problem is you have to have some customer willing to spend the cash in >> order to get a feature, and the fact is nobody other than Tom has been >> pushing for this. > > Very well, it is true that I only represent one user of networking > protocols, grant it a very large one. I will shut up now. If other > USERS want to chime in on what is best I'll certainly listen. Tom, I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing you are actually representing a large user here. By large user I assume you are implying Facebook? I agree that your point is very valid on the merits of the 1's compliment checksum likely being a useful feature, but I just think you are going about this the wrong way as obstructing things like this does little to impact hardware design decisions. If we want to win over the manufacturers we would have to speak with money as they aren't going to make something unless they are convinced they can sell it. Simply insisting we want some feature doesn't do much without the customer demand to back it up. So, unless you are telling me Facebook is going to let this feature influence a purchasing decision in the future, the argument is B.S. Not having this feature has to in some way impact sales. You need to make the 1's compliment checksum a check box type item that if the part doesn't have the customer won't buy. If you were to come up with some sort of data demonstrating the need for the feature and were to associate it with something such as Open Compute then you would start to go a long way towards winning over consumers that they need the feature and as a result convincing the manufacturers that they have to provide it. - Alex