On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 03:41:15PM +1000, Herbert Xu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:24:08AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > > So there is no place at the end of skb for additional pointer. > > And new question arises - until what Jesse suggested is implemented in > > some way, do we need to store a pointer to shared info inside skb and > > allocate it from cache in case it does no fit into aligned buffer (in > > case of e1000 it happens all the time exept 1500 MTU)? > > David, Herbert? > > I'm not sure whether this is really worth it. After all, the only > order of allocation that's really likely to succeed is 0. So going > from order 3 to order 2 probably doesn't make that big a difference.
16k is quite big overhead and it is much more possible to succeed than 32k, but in general, yes, only order 0 can succeed. So right now we can mark e1000 and other cards, which do not support frag_list generation as not supporting jumbo frames? > Cheers, > -- > Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ > Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ > PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- Evgeniy Polyakov - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
