[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3391500E-A14E-456A-952D-8F71A3A587D5@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 00:21:26 +0000
From: "Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
CC: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"jogreene@...hat.com" <jogreene@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 05/19] ixgbe: Add support for UDP-encapsulated tx
checksum offload
> On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
>
> Mark, another question in this area of code. Looking at ixgbe_tx_csum,
> I'm wondering what happens with those default cases for the switch
> statements. If those are hit for whatever reason does that mean the
> checksum is never resolved? It seems like if the device couldn't
> handle these cases then skb_checksum_help should be called to set the
> checksum. In particular I am wondering what happens in the case that a
> TCP or UDP packet is sent in IPv6 with an extension header present (so
> default is taken in switch (l4_hdr)). Would the checksum be properly
> set in this case?
I will look further into this, but in a first look it appears that you are right and that it has been this way for some time.
--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (842 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists