WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Xen

xen-devel

[Top] [All Lists]

[Xen-devel] Re: [1/4] [NET] back: Fix maximum fragment check

To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [1/4] [NET] back: Fix maximum fragment check
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 13:33:15 +1000
Cc: Xen Development Mailing List <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: 2006年6月30日 20:34:31 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060701032609.GA29803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <e9220840c1d7241f72f58c1771c74d40@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060629132608.GA22343@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <bd7d2589ed6bff8876dbfe4790244fb0@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060629230834.GA26561@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060630024047.GA29185@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060630124703.GA23466@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <69ce918a310b3e9597230c7d8521eed3@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060630132141.GA23719@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <6119c0c588ef3a01c19119bda86298fd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060701032609.GA29803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 01:26:09PM +1000, herbert wrote:
>
> > Do we then need the 'type' at all? What is it actually used for -- I'd 
> > assume the network stack would demux to the correct protocol code as it 
> > would for any ordinary packet, so why does it need help with the 
> > protocol for GSO packets?
>
> Good point. I'll get rid of it.
Actually, we do need it for two reasons:
1. To indicate protocol for drivers that can cope with malformed packets.
 The header verification will be skipped for such drivers.
2. To carry extra flags such as ECN that cannot harm the host if set
 incorrectly.
Given that Linux will cope with malformed headers or a bogus gso_type, I'd
really like to keep the type value uniform between Linux and Xen.
Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date: [Xen-devel] Re: [1/4] [NET] back: Fix maximum fragment check , Herbert Xu
Previous by Thread: [Xen-devel] Re: [1/4] [NET] back: Fix maximum fragment check , Herbert Xu
Next by Thread: [Xen-devel] [2/4] [NET]: Add net-tso.patch , Herbert Xu
Indexes: [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

Copyright ©, Citrix Systems Inc. All rights reserved. Legal and Privacy
Citrix This site is hosted by Citrix

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /