On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:33:36PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > 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.
In sysctl we have tso in tcp namespace. That's why I wanted tcplro. And claudio@ asked for a longer name. Let's see if he has an opinion.
