netdev - Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <74cc361f175467109b9b43f2d4e5ed53@walle.cc>
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 22:41:04 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>
Cc:     Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        vladimir.oltean@....com, po.liu@....com, Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com
Subject: Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

Hi,

Am 2020-05-18 15:36, schrieb Murali Karicheri:
> Hi,
> 
> On 5/17/20 11:06 AM, Michael Walle wrote:
>> What about the Qbu handshake state? And some NICs support overriding
>> this. I.e. enable frame preemption even if the handshake wasn't
>> successful.
> 
> You are talking about Verify procedure to hand shake with peer to
> know if remote support IET fragmentation and re-assembly?
yes

> If yes, this manual mode of provisioning is required as well. So
> one optional parameter needed is enable-verify. If that is not
> enabled then device assumes the remote is capable of fragmentation
> and re-assembly.

sounds good.

-michael