On 2014/08/20 17:17, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > David Gwynne [da...@gwynne.id.au] wrote: > > sthen@ says this is likely a bit optimistic. while most of our drivers > > unconditionally configure their max mru, there's some stupid ones that > > still interpret the configured mtu as a what the mru should be. > > > > All the more reason to make this change, I'd say :)
it's not just that - there are some like et(4) with obvious trade-offs visible in the driver source code which are only wanted in the case where jumbos are actually in use. and who knows what various chips will do internally when the command to permit jumbos or raise the valid packet size is sent. that said, there is a clear use case for being able to do 1500 MTU packets untagged while using jumbos on a vlan...
