Running under Linux these tests are redundant since the OS takes care of it. On SoCs the I/O HW will normally flag runt packets anyway so again this is unnecessary. It will be deleted along with the parser changes needed for the new packet APIs. An intermediate patch is fine but would be short lived since that routine is scheduled for replacement anyway.
Bill On Wednesday, November 26, 2014, Ciprian Barbu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Ola Liljedahl > <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > I think this check is too strict and should be removed. > > > > I remember we had a discussion about this many months ago and already > > then I was of the opinion that this check is unnecessary and not very > > beneficial. > > > > The 64-byte limit originates from Ethernet *link* restrictions and > > doesn't have anything to do with parsing packets. We want to be able > > to use virtual interfaces even in production systems, they are > > actually some very good reasons for that. > > There was a long discussion on this topic on end of April, there are > no archives for that it seems. I found this post which contains some > snippets: > http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/lng-odp/2014-April/000024.html > > But the conclusion of that discussion was that Petri wanted to have > ODP work with Ethernet cards only, no WiFi (which also generate frames > shorter than 60/64) and no other software originated packets. That's > why the restrictions was kept in place and instead a bug was opened > saying that ODP cannot work with wireless network cards. > > With the addition of classification support in linux-generic this > limitation should be revised IMO. > > /Ciprian > > > > > -- Ola > > > > On 26 November 2014 at 09:41, Shmulik Ladkani <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:04:53 -0600 Bill Fischofer < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>> These functions are scheduled for rework as part of the packet API > >>> revisions. Will be sure to address this point as part of that rework. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> If there's a concensus the 'len < ODPH_ETH_LEN_MIN' is too strict, any > >> reason not to submit a tiny patch that removes this sanity test? > >> > >> This could be beneficial, as your patchset would therefore not > >> carry this logical change, but instead focus on packet API changes. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Shmulik > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> lng-odp mailing list > >> [email protected] <javascript:;> > >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lng-odp mailing list > > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
