Stuart Henderson [[email protected]] wrote: > On 2014/08/20 17:17, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > > David Gwynne [[email protected]] 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. >
I don't think this is relevant. If a chip or driver is buggy in the jumbo MTU non-vlan case, now it will be buggy in the (somewhat unique) vlan jumbo MTU case as well.... > that said, there is a clear use case for being able to do 1500 MTU packets > untagged while using jumbos on a vlan... Yeah
