From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hisashi T Fujinaka Subject: Re: e1000e max frame calculation Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 20:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <5522B685.2030104@cchtml.com> <5522FE84.6030104@cchtml.com> <55231425.4010405@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Michael Cronenworth , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Alexander Duyck Return-path: Received: from 75-148-87-25-Oregon.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([75.148.87.25]:26784 "EHLO chris.i8u.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753106AbbDGDrP (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Apr 2015 23:47:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <55231425.4010405@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 6 Apr 2015, Alexander Duyck wrote: > The e1000e pch parts seem very limited in terms of their jumbo frames > support. It looks like the first pch part only supported 4K, and in the case > of the later generations I only see support for a 9018 jumbo frame listed in > the datasheet. I suspect this is why that is set as the limit in the driver. > The question at this point is if 9018 is the limit, why is it the limit and > is there any wiggle room to it. It's a limit that was told to us by the HW group for the 82579.