[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALx6S349Ub+UJSRN5UEt+0b76sVLzcxDbq_hZGaKkRzK-_gOrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:13:53 -0800
From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>,
Anjali Singhai Jain <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:06 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 20:59:05 +0100
>
>> Yes, I agree, I am totally with you here. If generic offloading can be
>> realized by NICs I am totally with you that this should be the way to
>> go. I don't see that coming in the next (small number of) years, so I
>> don't see a reason to stop this patchset.
>
> If I just apply this and say "yeah ok", the message is completely lost
> and your prediction about "small number of years" indeed will occur.
>
> However if I push back hard on this, as I will, then the message has
> some chance of seeping back to the people designing these chips.
>
> So that's what I'm going to do, like it or not.
>
> Or can someone convince me that someone who understand this stuff
> is telling the hardware guys to universally put 2's complement
> checksums into the descriptors?
>
We're talking about 1's complement checksum (RFC1701). Just to be clear :-)
--
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