From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759276Ab3HMUln (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:41:43 -0400 Received: from violet.fr.zoreil.com ([92.243.8.30]:48846 "EHLO violet.fr.zoreil.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758487Ab3HMUlm (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:41:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 22:41:31 +0200 From: Francois Romieu To: David Shwatrz Cc: Julia Lawall , grant.likely@linaro.org, rob.herring@calxeda.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: question about netif_rx Message-ID: <20130813204131.GA4696@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <20130811155640.GA10070@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20130813052036.GA11640@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Organisation: Land of Sunshine Inc. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (no top-post nor lazy quote please) David Shwatrz : [...] > In the napi_gro_receive() we check that the device supports > NETIF_F_GRO, but I don't see that we inspect checksum or that > NETIF_F_GRO is depends on checksum. napi_gro_receive is irrelevant. Let aside tunnel, the real work happens in the protocol specific gro_receive handlers. However I am an happy retard and I missed that tcp gro stopped depending on Rx checksum since commit 861b650101eb0c627d171eb18de81dddb93d395e. :o/ So, yes, napi_gro_receive could be used. -- Ueimor