| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:00:55 +0100 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE vs NETIF_F_GSO Hi Herbert, Thanks for your response! On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote: > The NETIF_F_GSO flag turns on software GSO which should be on > anyway. So that could be why it seems to make no difference. GSO is on by default? That makes sense, okay. > > NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE is actually a collection of bits that lists > the protocols for which we support software GSO. The bits themselves > are in fact an indication that the hardware supports GSO directly. > So by turning them on you're electing to receive GSO packets > directly. Right -- I saw the expansion in the header file -- it gets the various TSOs plus UFO. So what this means is that the packet hasn't yet been split up? So were I to add this option, then my driver would have to be responsible for splitting up the super-packets manually? In which case, there would be no performance benefit in using it, since GSO already does this just prior to ndo_start_xmit? Or would there be a performance benefit in receiving the super-packets and splitting them myself? -- 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