site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com The previous email represents my own personal opinion. -josh On Jan 2, 2007, at 5:41 AM, Andrew Gallatin wrote: <...> throughout the stack. Offloading more of the TCP stack on to hardware leads to similar problems. Mmmm canned worms. Is this what is preventing Apple from implementing other stateless offloads, such as TCP Segmentation Offload (also known as Large Send Offload)? AFAIK, Darwin/MacOSX is the only major OS kernel to not support TSO these days, and it really hurts your performance. Drew _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-kernel mailing list (Darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-kernel/site_archiver%40lists.a... This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com No. TCP offload support is something on the to-do list. It's just a question of resources and priorities. As much of a mess as that will create, there is potentially a huge upside. The question is, how many people will benefit from it whether there are more pressing issues. Josh Graessley writes: Why am I so opposed to hardware checksums? Two reasons. First, _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-kernel mailing list (Darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-kernel/ lists.mac.darwin-kernel%40equinux.de This email sent to lists.mac.darwin-kernel@equinux.de smime.p7s