[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4966EE86.3030704@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:28:22 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: bhutchings@...arflare.com, rick.jones2@...com, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make possible speeds known to ethtool
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 12:30:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Actually it's just the opposite -- _the_ most common complaint from
>> users and driver developers of the ethtool interface, over the years,
>> has been that there is no way to collect all the modifications and then
>> commit it to hardware all in one go.
>
> Yes that's a problem for flags that require the drivers to reset
> itself.
>
>> Each new ethtool command added often winds up pausing and resetting the
>> hardware completely, and ETHTOOL_SGRO is no exception.
>
> But as I explained before, GRO (like GSO) is purely a software
> setting, it has nothing to do with the driver at all. In other
Not quite true... it touches the driver's rx-csum hook.
> If anything by going into the driver's set_flags function as you
> suggested may cause a spurious reset that wouldn't have happened
> otherwise.
>
> So for software flags like GSO/GRO at least, I don't see any
> benefit in going to a multi-bit interface. On the flip side,
> I see potential complications with a multi-bit interfaces that
> simply don't exist with a single-bit interface.
Well, whichever. Overall, if [GS]GRO remains I am happy to take patches
supporting it in the userspace utility...
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