WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] net: xen-netback: convert to hw_features

To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] net: xen-netback: convert to hw_features
From: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:30:19 +0200
Cc: "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 06:31:00 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1303219073.5997.191.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20110419115612.C4ACA13909@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <1303219073.5997.191.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 02:17:53PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 12:56 +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Thanks for beating me to this! However the prototype for
> xenvif_fix_features is wrong (needs to take a net_device not a xenvif).

I'll resend v2 with this fix.

> I fixed it with the following, I also moved the !can_sg MTU clamping
> into a set_features hook (like we do with netfront). Am I right that
> this pattern copes with changes to SG via ethtool etc better? I think
> it's more future proof in any case.

This looks wrong. Even if SG is turned on, you might get big skbs which
are linearized. There is a difference in SG capability and SG offload
status and as I see it the capability is what you need to test for MTU.

> NB: I'm having some issues with my test hardware at the moment so this
> is reviewed by eye and compile tested only...
> 
> I'm also happy for this to be folded into the original with my
> "Signed-off-/Acked-by Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>" if that is
> preferable.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel