On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 05:07:06PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On 2015-08-14 7:41 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> >
> >Yeah, my thinking was that it should mean "there's at least one lro
> >capable slave". If we just leave things the way they are though, I think
> >its confusing on the user side -- it w
On 2015-08-14 7:41 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
On 2015-08-14 2:56 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:02:55PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Currently, all bonding devices come up, and claim to have LRO support,
which ethtool will let you toggle on and off, even if none of the
underlyi
On 2015-08-14 2:56 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:02:55PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Currently, all bonding devices come up, and claim to have LRO support,
which ethtool will let you toggle on and off, even if none of the
underlying hardware devices actually support it. Whi
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:02:55PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Currently, all bonding devices come up, and claim to have LRO support,
> which ethtool will let you toggle on and off, even if none of the
> underlying hardware devices actually support it. While the bonding driver
> takes precautions
Currently, all bonding devices come up, and claim to have LRO support,
which ethtool will let you toggle on and off, even if none of the
underlying hardware devices actually support it. While the bonding driver
takes precautions for slaves that don't support all features, this is at
least a little
