[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061011.135201.15405152.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mst@...lanox.co.il
Cc: steve@...gwyn.com, shemminger@...l.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
openib-general@...nib.org, rolandd@...co.com
Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:01:03 +0200
> Quoting Steven Whitehouse <steve@...gwyn.com>:
> > > ssize_t tcp_sendpage(struct socket *sock, struct page *page, int offset,
> > > size_t size, int flags)
> > > {
> > > ssize_t res;
> > > struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > >
> > > if (!(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG) ||
> > > !(sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM))
> > > return sock_no_sendpage(sock, page, offset, size, flags);
> > >
> > >
> > > So, it seems that if I set NETIF_F_SG but clear NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM,
> > > data will be copied over rather than sent directly.
> > > So why does dev.c have to force set NETIF_F_SG to off then?
> > >
> > I agree with that analysis,
>
> So, would you Ack something like the following then?
I certainly don't.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists