| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1267498318.2819.21.camel@localhost> Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:51:58 +0000 From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: mekaviraj@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: NETIF_F_FRAGLIST and NETIF_F_SG difference On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 17:40 -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:58:41 +0000 > > > (I don't know why there are two ways of adding extra data. The latter > > does not seem to be used often.) > > It's the most efficient way to handle IPv4/IPv6 fragmentation and > reassembly. But fragmentation results in a series of packets to be transmitted separately (not gathered) and reassembly is only done at endpoints. So when would we see a fragment list on the transmit path? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. -- 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