From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: [net PATCH 2/2] ipv4/GRO: Make GRO conform to RFC 6864 Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 10:19:17 +0800 Message-ID: <20160402021917.GA19570@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <20160402015709.GA19365@gondor.apana.org.au> <1459563333.6473.302.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: aduyck@mirantis.com, tom@herbertland.com, jesse@kernel.org, alexander.duyck@gmail.com, edumazet@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from helcar.hengli.com.au ([209.40.204.226]:45554 "EHLO helcar.hengli.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752095AbcDBCTg (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Apr 2016 22:19:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1459563333.6473.302.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 07:15:33PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Sat, 2016-04-02 at 09:57 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > > We could easily fix that by adding a feature bit to control this, > > something like SKB_GSO_TCP_FIXEDID. > > I understood the patch allowed to aggregate 4 segments having > > ID=12 ID=40 ID=80 ID=1000 Right. But I haven't seen any justification that we should aggregate such packets at all. The only valid case that I have seen is for the case of unchanging IDs, no? Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt