From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:35:22 +0100

quoted text
> Le lundi 03 janvier 2011 à 11:40 -0800, David Miller a écrit :
>> I think at least TSO6 would very much be appropriate here.
> 
> Yes, why not, I am only wondering why loopback / dummy (and others ?)
> only set NETIF_F_TSO :)

TSO6 probably didn't exist when the current set were added,
at least in the loopback case that's almost certainly the
reason.

quoted text
> Since I want to play with ECN, I might also add NETIF_F_TSO_ECN ;)
> 
> For other flags, I really doubt it can matter on ifb ?
> 
> [PATCH v3 net-next-2.6] ifb: add performance flags
> 
> IFB can use the full set of features flags (NETIF_F_SG |
> NETIF_F_FRAGLIST | NETIF_F_TSO | NETIF_F_NO_CSUM | NETIF_F_HIGHDMA) to
> avoid unnecessary split of some packets (GRO for example)
> 
> Changli suggested to also set vlan_features, NETIF_F_TSO6,
> NETIF_F_TSO_ECN.
> 
> Jarek suggested to add NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_TX as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>

I'll apply this, thanks Eric.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html