Le lundi 06 février 2012 à 11:58 -0500, David Miller a écrit : > From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:47:14 +0100 > > [ Roland Dreier CC:'d ] > > > gro_max_header_len can be different than hard_header_len because as Or > > Gerlitz said : > > > > IPoIB advertizes hard_header_len which is bigger than the > > IPoIB header len, this is done such that skbs sent by the > > network stack have enough headroom for a "pseudoheader" > > which for few flows (e.g unicast arp replies and multicast) > > is placed there by the ipoib hard_header function and later > > used by the xmit function. > > Translation: IPoIB's path resolution mechanism is garbage > > So if IPoIB path resolution was properly integrated into the neighbour > cache state machine, instead of being implemented awkwardly in the > device transmit path, this crap wouldn't be necessary right? > > So here we have yet another incredibly painful side effect of how > IPoIB path resolution works. > > Roland, I want you to seriously consider a way, any way, to get rid of > how IPoIB does path resolution. It must be fully integrated into the > neighbour layer, the neighbour layer must be knowledgable about how > path resolution is a necessary step for a neighbour entry to enter the > valid state, and I want all of this awkward neighbour handling code > removed from the transmit path of IPoIB. > > And finally it must not lie about it's hardware header length. > > Then we won't need crap like what is being proposed here, a > "no_this_is_the_real_hard_header_len" struct member. That's just > rediculious.
OK, I'll resend my first patch then, using hard_header_len -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
