From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/2] virtio_net: Read the advised MTU Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:02:43 -0700 Message-ID: <575074C3.8040908@hpe.com> References: <1464882211-18723-1-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com> <1464882211-18723-3-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com> <5750578E.4040406@hpe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Aaron Conole Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On 06/02/2016 10:06 AM, Aaron Conole wrote: > Rick Jones writes: >> One of the things I've been doing has been setting-up a cluster >> (OpenStack) with JumboFrames, and then setting MTUs on instance vNICs >> by hand to measure different MTU sizes. It would be a shame if such a >> thing were not possible in the future. Keeping a warning if shrinking >> the MTU would be good, leave the error (perhaps) to if an attempt is >> made to go beyond the advised value. > > This was cut because it didn't make sense for such a warning to > be issued, but it seems like perhaps you may want such a feature? I > agree with Michael, after thinking about it, that I don't know what sort > of use the warning would serve. After all, if you're changing the MTU, > you must have wanted such a change to occur? I don't need a warning, was simply willing to live with one when shrinking the MTU. Didn't want an error. happy benchmarking, rick jones