[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46BCD263.6050807@garzik.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:02:27 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC: davem@...emloft.net, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add ETHTOOL_[GS]FLAGS sub-ioctls
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> index 4a616d7..559a4dc 100644
> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> @@ -341,6 +341,7 @@ struct net_device
> #define NETIF_F_GSO 2048 /* Enable software GSO. */
> #define NETIF_F_LLTX 4096 /* LockLess TX */
> #define NETIF_F_MULTI_QUEUE 16384 /* Has multiple TX/RX queues */
> +#define NETIF_F_LRO 32768 /* large receive offload */
>
> /* Segmentation offload features */
> #define NETIF_F_GSO_SHIFT 16
> diff --git a/net/core/ethtool.c b/net/core/ethtool.c
> index 2ab0a60..6e8563e 100644
> --- a/net/core/ethtool.c
> +++ b/net/core/ethtool.c
> @@ -109,6 +109,32 @@ int ethtool_op_set_ufo(struct net_device *dev, u32 data)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/* the following list of flags are the same as their associated
> + * NETIF_F_xxx values in include/linux/netdevice.h
> + */
> +static const u32 flags_dup_features =
> + ETH_FLAG_LRO;
> +
> +u32 ethtool_op_get_flags(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> + /* in the future, this function will probably contain additional
> + * handling for flags which are not so easily handled
> + * by a simple masking operation
> + */
> +
> + return dev->features & flags_dup_features;
> +}
> +
> +int ethtool_op_set_flags(struct net_device *dev, u32 data)
> +{
> + if (data & ETH_FLAG_LRO)
> + dev->features |= NETIF_F_LRO;
> + else
> + dev->features &= ~NETIF_F_LRO;
> +
And, a side discussion:
This patch copies Auke in adding NETIF_F_LRO. Is that just for
temporary merging, or does the net core really not touch it at all?
Because, logically, if NETIF_F_LRO exists nowhere else but this patch,
we should not add it to dev->features. LRO knowledge can be contained
entirely within the driver, if the net core never tests NETIF_F_LRO.
I haven't reviewed the other NETIF_F_XXX flags, but, that logic can be
applied to any other NETIF_F_XXX flag: if the net stack isn't using it,
it's a piece of information specific to that driver.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists