On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Quoting James Lentini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] IB/ipoib: S/G and HW checksum support > > > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > Add module option hw_csum: when set, IPoIB will report S/G > > > support, and rely on hardware end-to-end transport checksum (ICRC) > > > instead of software-level protocol checksums. > > > > The purpose of this option would be clearer if the parameter name were > > "omit_csum". Calling this "HW checksum" support is misleading because > > the term is already used to describe network adapters that calculate > > TCP/IP checksums in hardware. I realize that you are using the HW > > checksum infrastructure to implement this, but it is really not the > > same thing. > > Another reason is that I declare HW_CSUM in the netdev > feature list. Yea, someone might get confused, > but "omit checksum" is misleading, too, and is likely to > scare users away from the feature: the need for end-to-end checksum > is a widely recognised requirement. I agree. Since this isn't an end-to-end checksum, I recommend that be made clear to the user. > So I don't have a better name. Hopefully modinfo documents the > option well enough. > > > > Since this will not inter-operate with older IPoIB modules, this > > > option is off by default. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Does the S/G support need to be tied to the checksum changes? Can you separate the S/G support and checksum changes into different patches? _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
