> So it may be okay to punt on jumbograms for now, and use a 64K static
> buffer like the patch in the PR does. Even if you do implement support for
> jumbograms, I think keeping the 64K static buffer around as a "fast-path"
> for the common case makes sense.
Does it talk about how jumbograms will apply to UDP? I suspect the
max udp data size might be unchanged anyway...
The problem remains even if I punt on jumbograms though, how should
I spell 65536?
David.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
