[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:45:23 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] skge csum problems
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:36:38AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > you will get the same behaviour on big- and little-endian boxen, even though
> > the intermediate integer values will be of course different.
> >
> > skb->csum *must* be stored in the same order on l-e and b-e boxen; that
> > way you don't need to convert it or raw data when updating the sucker [*].
> >
> > [*] it's slightly more complicated since skb->csum is 4-byte, not 2-byte
> > and the real invariant is "checksum of 4-octet array at &skb->csum must
> > not depend on host" (so e.g XX YY 00 00 and 00 00 XX YY are equivalent -
> > checksum doesn't change from reordering octet pairs; XX YY 00 00 and
> > 00 00 YY XX are very definitely *NOT* equivalent; odd and even bytes
> > can't be exchanged).
>
> Did you test this on real hardware?
Test _what_ on real hardware? That kernel expects skb->csum fixed-endian?
That csum_add() and friends work? Yes to both.
If you are asking whether I'd tested what skge does to csum in its rx
descriptors when asked to byteswap - as I've said, all skge-handled stuff
I have is on-board in little-endian boxen. Thus asking for folks who
could test it on big-endian and see what does that sucker actually do...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists