)]}'
{
  "commit": "39980292fda20b38baf95bfa577db8b678eecc86",
  "tree": "12259aee27b284c45b4444ce2985e940bea503d8",
  "parents": [
    "0dfb33a0d7e2d9316eb4441a065ddd173f87223e"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Eric Dumazet",
    "email": "eric.dumazet@gmail.com",
    "time": "Mon Jan 03 10:35:22 2011 +0000"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "David S. Miller",
    "email": "davem@davemloft.net",
    "time": "Mon Jan 03 12:43:10 2011 -0800"
  },
  "message": "ifb: add performance flags\n\nLe lundi 03 janvier 2011 à 11:40 -0800, David Miller a écrit :\n\u003e From: Jarek Poplawski \u003cjarkao2@gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 20:37:03 +0100\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 09:24:36PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Le mercredi 29 décembre 2010 ?? 00:07 +0100, Jarek Poplawski a écrit :\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e Ingress is before vlans handler so these features and the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_TX flag seem useful for ifb considering\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e dev_hard_start_xmit() checks.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e OK, here is v2 of the patch then, thanks everybody.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e [PATCH v2 net-next-2.6] ifb: add performance flags\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e IFB can use the full set of features flags (NETIF_F_SG |\n\u003e \u003e\u003e NETIF_F_FRAGLIST | NETIF_F_TSO | NETIF_F_NO_CSUM | NETIF_F_HIGHDMA) to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e avoid unnecessary split of some packets (GRO for example)\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Changli suggested to also set vlan_features,\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e He also suggested more GSO flags of which especially NETIF_F_TSO6\n\u003e \u003e seems interesting (wrt GRO)?\n\u003e\n\u003e I think at least TSO6 would very much be appropriate here.\n\nYes, why not, I am only wondering why loopback / dummy (and others ?)\nonly set NETIF_F_TSO :)\n\nSince I want to play with ECN, I might also add NETIF_F_TSO_ECN ;)\n\nFor other flags, I really doubt it can matter on ifb ?\n\n[PATCH v3 net-next-2.6] ifb: add performance flags\n\nIFB can use the full set of features flags (NETIF_F_SG |\nNETIF_F_FRAGLIST | NETIF_F_TSO | NETIF_F_NO_CSUM | NETIF_F_HIGHDMA) to\navoid unnecessary split of some packets (GRO for example)\n\nChangli suggested to also set vlan_features, NETIF_F_TSO6,\nNETIF_F_TSO_ECN.\n\nJarek suggested to add NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_TX as well.\n\nSigned-off-by: Eric Dumazet \u003ceric.dumazet@gmail.com\u003e\nCc: Changli Gao \u003cxiaosuo@gmail.com\u003e\nCc: Jarek Poplawski \u003cjarkao2@gmail.com\u003e\nCc: Pawel Staszewski \u003cpstaszewski@itcare.pl\u003e\nSigned-off-by: David S. Miller \u003cdavem@davemloft.net\u003e\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "124dac4532b240dfb16d724172fca616264d0c55",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "drivers/net/ifb.c",
      "new_id": "e07d487f015a7a8f5f5ba865cdc5f75b318ae4c8",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "drivers/net/ifb.c"
    }
  ]
}