[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <386072610804270637n68478a63mab9935fb935aaab5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:37:15 +0800
From: "Bryan Wu" <cooloney@...nel.org>
To: "Al Viro" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blackfin checksum annotations
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 01:16:23PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>
> > I don't think such arch specific patches should go in via net-2.6.
> > You did that for a very similar patch for s390 and it was subtly broken:
> >
> > See:
> > f994aae1bd8e4813d59a2ed64d17585fe42d03fc
> > ("[NET]: S390 checksum annotations and cleanups.")
> >
> > and
> >
> > afbc1e994ddcf3b6fe2dc928ee8dc31a5d0c3118
> > ("[S390] Fix TCP/UDP pseudo header checksum computation.")
>
> I remember, and AFAICT this one is safe - here everything stays within
> C and type changes ought to be equivalent transformations. Said that,
> I do _NOT_ have hardware in question and it's completely untested at
> runtime.
>
Sorry for the delay. I will test this patch on Blackfin arch. And if it is ok,
it will be merged to Blackfin git tree. As long as it is a Blackfin
arch related issue,
merging to Blackfin tree is a better way.
> Al, who really couldn't care less which tree that goes through - up to
> davem and blackfin maintainers; both are on Cc, so...
>
Thanks
-Bryan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists