[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1365773815.15783.44.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:36:55 +0100
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
CC: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"annie.li@...cle.com" <annie.li@...cle.com>,
"wdauchy@...il.com" <wdauchy@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] xen-netfront: reduce gso_max_size to account for
ethernet header
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 14:29 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:58:19PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 10:43 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 10:34 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> >
> > > > But we don't have handle on this. If I understand correctly the
> > > > discussion in other thread, 90 is empirical value, not something
> > > > documented.
> > >
> > > My original question was effectively "is anyone else going to be
> > > interested in this empirical value", if so then it seems like it would
> > > be useful to have it centrally defined.
> > >
> >
> > This could be MAX_TCP_HEADER. Probably a bit overestimated but do we
> > care ?
> >
>
> I don't think we care. MAX_TCP_HEADER is as good as any. Reserving a few
> more bytes won't hurt. I just want to make sure the value doesn't look
> like something randomly comes up in my mind. :-)
>
> Ian, what do you think?
It could be up to 256 bytes from the looks of things, depending
on .config. That's probably ok.
Ian.
--
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