Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls

2007-08-15 Thread David Miller
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:56:17 -0400 > All this is currently checked into the 'eflags' branch of > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git > > But when everybody is happy with it, IMO we should get it into > net-2.6.24.git, as i

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls

2007-08-14 Thread Kok, Auke
Rick Jones wrote: David Miller wrote: From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:40:02 -0700 For GSO on output, is there a generic fallback for any driver that does not specifically implement GSO? Absolutely, in fact that's mainly what it's there for. I don't think ther

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls

2007-08-10 Thread Rick Jones
David Miller wrote: From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:40:02 -0700 For GSO on output, is there a generic fallback for any driver that does not specifically implement GSO? Absolutely, in fact that's mainly what it's there for. I don't think there is any issue. T

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls

2007-08-10 Thread David Miller
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:40:02 -0700 > For GSO on output, is there a generic fallback for any driver that > does not specifically implement GSO? Absolutely, in fact that's mainly what it's there for. I don't think there is any issue. The knob is there via e

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls

2007-08-10 Thread Ben Greear
David Miller wrote: From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I believe LRO is going to have to be disabled for routing/bridging, so the stack will probably need to become aware of it at some point... The packet will be GSO'd on output I believe, so it won't break anything. Alternatively, we cou

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls

2007-08-10 Thread David Miller
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:11:24 -0700 > Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > This patch copies Auke in adding NETIF_F_LRO. Is that just for > > temporary merging, or does the net core really not touch it at all? > > > > Because, logically, if NETIF_F_LRO exists nowhere

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls

2007-08-10 Thread Ben Greear
Jeff Garzik wrote: This patch copies Auke in adding NETIF_F_LRO. Is that just for temporary merging, or does the net core really not touch it at all? Because, logically, if NETIF_F_LRO exists nowhere else but this patch, we should not add it to dev->features. LRO knowledge can be contained

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls

2007-08-10 Thread Jeff Garzik
Jeff Garzik wrote: diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h index 4a616d7..559a4dc 100644 --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h @@ -341,6 +341,7 @@ struct net_device #define NETIF_F_GSO2048/* Enable software GSO. */ #define NET

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls

2007-08-10 Thread Jeff Garzik
All this is currently checked into the 'eflags' branch of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git But when everybody is happy with it, IMO we should get it into net-2.6.24.git, as it enables LRO. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs

[PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls

2007-08-10 Thread Jeff Garzik
Also, adds support for the first flag, LRO. Earlier version of this patch posted about 12 hours ago. commit 84bf82f38dacde0fa86986e23c061728e819810e Author: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri Aug 10 05:27:23 2007 -0400 [ETHTOOL] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls Signed-off