On 06/03/12 20:14, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > On 06/04/12 02:51, Colin Percival wrote: >> I've attached a new patch which: >> 1. adds a IFCAP_TSO_MSS "capability" and a if_tx_tso_mss field to struct >> ifnet, > > A minor thing, but I don't like the overloading of the term MSS. Perhaps > s/MSS/CHUNKSIZE or another suitably similar but different word/phrase?
I don't see this as being overloading; rather, it's using the same term to mean exactly the same thing: Maximum Segment Size, in this case of a TCP segment which is going to be re-segmented in hardware. >> 2. sets these in netfront when the IFCAP_TSO4 flag is set, >> 3. extends tcp_maxmtu to read this value, >> 4. adds a tx_tso_mss field to struct tcpcb, >> 5. makes tcp_mss_update set tx_tso_mss using tcp_maxmtu, and >> 6. limits TSO lengths to tx_tso_mss in tcp_output. > > Is there a reason to mix signed and unsigned types for the various tx_tso_mss > variables? If not, please pick a type and stick with it. It's all unsigned now (see updated patch I sent in reply to gallatin@). The use of u_int vs. uint32_t is because I wanted to have this fit into spares in struct ifnet and struct tcpcb and I wasn't 100% certain that there weren't any platforms with sizeof(int) != sizeof(uint32_t). -- Colin Percival Security Officer Emeritus, FreeBSD | The power to serve Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
