[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OS0PR01MB5922FD0183178493CAAA9D6886B69@OS0PR01MB5922.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:39:30 +0000
From: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@...russia.ru>,
Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Yuusuke Ashizuka <ashiduka@...itsu.com>,
Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>, Chris Paterson
<Chris.Paterson2@...esas.com>, Biju Das <biju.das@...renesas.com>,
Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 13/14] ravb: Update EMAC configuration mode
comment
Hi Jakub Kicinski,
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 13/14] ravb: Update EMAC configuration
> mode comment
>
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 10:56:32 +0000 Biju Das wrote:
> > > > This is TOE related,
> >
> > I meant the context here is TOE register related. That is what I meant.
>
> Did you test TCP packets with bad checksums? The description you posted
> earlier could indicate this is about dropping such packets, not about
> address filtering?
I have made changes similar to R-Car for HW Checksum on RX and passed wrong checksum(0x0000 or 0xffff) and it crashed the system.
Regards,
Biju
Powered by blists - more mailing lists