Re: tap(4) SIOCSIFMTU patch

2009-03-13 Thread Bruce Simpson
Sean C. Farley wrote: ... Exhausting the jumbo cluster pool refers to kern.ipc.nmbjumbo[p|9|16], yes? em(4) has an upper limit of 16114 for MTU. I could limit the MTU to TAPMRU (16384) which is the limit for a write to the driver anyway. Just waiting for my VFS cache to spool up after a fres

Re: tap(4) SIOCSIFMTU patch

2009-03-13 Thread Sean C. Farley
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Bruce Simpson wrote: Sean C. Farley wrote: Yes, this fixes my issue with bridging a tap device to an interface with an MTU higher than 1500. I will probably commit this patch this weekend. I can't think of any reason why not, other than you might want to ensure that

Re: tap(4) SIOCSIFMTU patch

2009-03-13 Thread Bruce Simpson
Sean C. Farley wrote: Yes, this fixes my issue with bridging a tap device to an interface with an MTU higher than 1500. I will probably commit this patch this weekend. I can't think of any reason why not, other than you might want to ensure that tap's MTU is bounded within reasonable limits

Re: tap(4) SIOCSIFMTU patch

2009-03-13 Thread Sean C. Farley
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Rui Paulo wrote: On 13 Mar 2009, at 01:54, Sean C. Farley wrote: Here is a patch[1] that will allow the MTU to be set higher than 1500 on a tap(4) interface. I ran into the need to do this when I had em0 set to 9000 and tried to bridge em0 with tap0 (MTU 1500) for QEMU.

Re: tap(4) SIOCSIFMTU patch

2009-03-13 Thread Rui Paulo
On 13 Mar 2009, at 01:54, Sean C. Farley wrote: Here is a patch[1] that will allow the MTU to be set higher than 1500 on a tap(4) interface. I ran into the need to do this when I had em0 set to 9000 and tried to bridge em0 with tap0 (MTU 1500) for QEMU. A bridge interface will not allow