[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8BD201BE-E272-4BA7-ABB4-8FDCE139495D@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:11:17 +0000
From: "Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
CC: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com" <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>,
"tom@...bertland.com" <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/8] net: gre: Implement LCO for GRE over IPv4
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:
> Actually you may want to go the other way on that. If they weren't
> flipping the checksum value for GRE before why should we start doing
> that now? I'm pretty sure the checksum mangling is a very UDP centric
> thing. There is no need to introduce it to other protocols.
If different checksum representations are needed, then there really should
be an explicit indication of whether it is a UDP-style checksum or other in
the skb I would think rather than guessing it based on the offset. Of
course it would be convenient if all the protocols that use a one's
complement checksum would tolerate the UDP representation. I have a long
(and now old) history working with real one's complement machines, and so I
would want to believe that any correct implementation would tolerate it,
but I don't know for a fact that they do.
--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (842 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists