[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101102013032.GF15848@rere.qmqm.pl>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:30:32 +0100
From: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...c.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Rasesh Mody <rmody@...cade.com>,
Debashis Dutt <ddutt@...cade.com>,
Kristoffer Glembo <kristoffer@...sler.com>,
linux-driver@...gic.com, linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Ethtool: cleanup strategy
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 01:14:23AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 09:05:25PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> [...]
> > > It also might be worth defining a standard feature flag for RX checksum
> > > offload, since currently every driver has to maintain its own private
> > > flag. Though we're running short of feature flags on 32-bit machines.
> > RX offloads are different in that most devices allow readback of
> > configured bits, so actually no specific flags are needed.
> [...]
> Most devices also need resetting from time to time, so those flags still
> need to be included in software state.
Ah. Good point. So this should be converted to the same way the TX offloads
will be handled.
Is it worth to split rx and tx features to separate bitfields? Especially
that we're running out of bits in u32 and that TX flags are used in hot
path and RX are normally not accessed much.
Are the features flags exported somewhere to userspace except via ethtool?
Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław
--
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