On Aug 19, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com> wrote:
>> @@ -381,6 +386,10 @@ dpif_linux_port_add(struct dpif *dpif_, struct netdev
>> *netdev,
>> request.options_len = options->size;
>> }
>>
>> + if (request.type == ODP_VPORT_TYPE_NETDEV) {
>> + netdev_linux_ethtool_set_flag(netdev, ETH_FLAG_LRO, false);
>> + }
>
> One other thing: the kernel implementation of dev_disable_lro()
> fetches the flags again after it disables LRO and checks to see if it
> really is disabled, issuing a warning if it isn't. This sounds
> completely unnecessary but I've seen the warning trigger several times
> before so maybe we should do that as well.
The kernel implementation disables LRO by first doing an ethtool GFLAGS and
then appropriate SFLAGS. It then confirms that it is correct by checking
"dev->features & NETIF_F_LRO" on the actual device.
Is it sufficient to just do another ethtool GFLAGS or should we be checking the
configuration of the actual device directly? The "features" flag is exported
through sysfs, but it may be a little hacky getting it through there.
--Justin
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
