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 19:59:48 +1000
Cc: Xen Development Mailing List <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: 2006年7月01日 03:01:14 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <69b713d882b30e730f7e83514eebe737@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <bd7d2589ed6bff8876dbfe4790244fb0@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060629230834.GA26561@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060630024047.GA29185@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060630124703.GA23466@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <69ce918a310b3e9597230c7d8521eed3@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060630132141.GA23719@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <6119c0c588ef3a01c19119bda86298fd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060701032609.GA29803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060701033315.GA30050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <69b713d882b30e730f7e83514eebe737@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 09:24:13AM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
>
> I'm uncomfortable with this, even though it makes things a little 
> easier now. For sanity I want to see netfront/netback explicitly grok 
> flags rather than dumbly pass them through. I'd prefer uint8_t protocol 
> and uint8_t flags. Former is a protocol enumeration; latter is unused 
> now but we can add ECN and so on later. By the way: will we need 
OK.
> netback to advertise support for the ECN flag? I'm not sure exactly 
> what it will mean, and whether it can just be ignored by netbacks that 
> don't support it?
If netback does not advertise the flag then netfront will perform
segmentation before passing TCP packets with CWR set through.
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: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH - proposed] XI Shadow Page Table Mechanism] , zhu
Next by Date: Recent stuff Every man wishes it. , Alisha
Previous by Thread: [Xen-devel] Re: [1/4] [NET] back: Fix maximum fragment check , Keir Fraser
Next by Thread: [Xen-devel] Re: [1/4] [NET] back: Fix maximum fragment check , Keir Fraser
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) /