Question about supporting non-IP offloads (FCoE) | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
I'm looking at adding support for stateless offloads to the Fibre Channel over Ethernet stack at open-fcoe.org that roughly match currently supported TCP offloads: Fibre Channel CRC offload on Tx and Rx, and sequencing offload (GSO) on Tx. >From the net_device all I see the need for is two feature flags bits for the transmit path, one for FC-CRC and one for FCoE GSO. In the skb, the FCoE needs match up well with the existing CRC and GSO fields. I would like to reuse the ip_summed bits rather than add to the skb, but I suspect this will be the most controversial part of the FCoE offloads. Are there any objections to the idea of adding checks for FCoE protocol to the dev_queue_xmit/dev_can_checksum/can_checksum_protocol path? Obviously skb_checksum_help isn't going to work as a software fallback and a protocol check would need to be added there as well, or a per-protocol helper like is done for gso_segment. - Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Kernel List] [Site Home] [Ethernet Bridging] [Git] [IETF Annouce] [Linux Assembly] [VLAN] [Networking] [Security] [Bugtraq] [Rubini] [Photo] [Singles Social Netowrking] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Virtualization] [Linux Security] [Linux IDE] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Linux Wireless] [DDR & Rambus] [Free Dating] [Linux Resources] [Wireless Reading Device]
![]() |
![]() |