> On 6 Jun 2023, at 20:29, Alexander Bluhm <alexander.bl...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 05:54:31PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 02:31:52PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would suggest to rename ifconfig tcprecvoffload to tcplro. Maybe
>>> it's just because I had to type that long name too often.
>>>
>>> With that we have consistent naming:
>>> # ifconfig ix0 tcplro
>>> # sysctl net.inet.tcp.tso=1
>>>
>>> Also the coresponding flag are named LRO.
>>> # ifconfig ix1 hwfeatures
>>> ix1: flags=2008843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,LRO> mtu 1500
>>>
>>> hwfeatures=71b7<CSUM_IPv4,CSUM_TCPv4,CSUM_UDPv4,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,CSUM_TCPv6,CSUM_UDPv6,TSOv4,TSOv6,LRO>
>>> hardmtu 9198
>>>
>>> The feature is quite new, so I have no backward compatiblity concerns.
>>>
>>> ok?
>>>
>>
>> Could you name it "lro" like FreeBSD uses?
>
> When I started with this, LRO and TSO were unknown to me. So with
> TCP prefix it may be clearer to users where the feature belongs.
>
> Naming is hard.
Yeah, naming is definitely hard. I propose to use lro because it is
already used for the same purpose by FreeBSD, so the same name helps
to avoid confusion.
lro If the driver supports tcp(4) large receive offloading,
enable LRO on the interface.
Also, we have used "tso" keyword for tcp segmentation offloading for
the same reason, until it became global net.inet.tcp.tso.
