[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYp1kiGY0K7kNF+qadPyq1hu3G=2oc1gXnCt3DjtiJxag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2023 21:56:23 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@...glemail.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 4/4] net: ethernet: cortina: Handle large frames
On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 3:57 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> > + * Just bypass on bigger frames.
> > + */
> > + word1 |= TSS_BYPASS_BIT;
> > + } else if (skb->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_NONE) {
>
> I've never looked at how the network stack does checksums. But looking
> at this patch, it made me wounder, how do you tell the stack it needs
> to do a software checksum because the hardware cannot?
I read up on it: the documentation is in
Documentation/networking/checksum-offloads.rst
and in the header for skbuff, include/linux/skbuff.h
Actually we should check for == CHECKSUM_PARTIAL which means
we need to do the checksum (!= CHECKSUM_NONE is not inclusive)
then I call a software fallback directly from the driver if I need to.
> Or for this
> driver, is it always calculating a checksum, which is then ignored?
> Maybe you can improve performance a little but disabling software
> checksum when it is not needed?
The ping was somehow working without proper checksum
before, but I think I'm doing the right thing now, also tested with
HTTP traffic, check out v2.
Thanks for pointing it out, the patch looks way better now.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists