Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752707AbaKLNPu (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:15:50 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39030 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752406AbaKLNPt (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:15:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:15:46 +0100 From: Michal Kubecek To: David Miller Cc: vfalico@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, j.vosburgh@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net, jiri@resnulli.us Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] dev_disable_lro() improvements for stacked devices Message-ID: <20141112131546.GA8745@unicorn.suse.cz> References: <20141111090522.GB20586@raspberrypi> <20141111093457.GA30178@unicorn.suse.cz> <20141111.214752.266800170368088905.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141111.214752.266800170368088905.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 09:47:52PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > Please do it generically. > > Having a special stanza for each layered device type in > dev_disable_lro() is beyond stupid. Especially when it > can in fact be done cleanly. I gave it some thought and I would like ask one question first: Does the upper-lower relationship always mean that upper device receives packets through its lower device(s) so that LRO should always be disabled for lower devices whenever there are some? Or should it be limited only to an explicit list of device types (vlan, macvlan, bond, team)? Michal Kubecek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/