From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:18:09 +1000
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Probably a better way to handle this is to correct the > > INDATAGRAMS value by decrementing it when we notice that > > the checksum is incorrect in a deferred manner. > > I think sunrpc should instead increment the appropriate counters directly > as otherwise checksum errors won't be recorded correctly for sunrpc packets. Yeah. Good point. But how much protocol internals do we want to slide into the ->data_ready() callbacks of such layers? That's ugly and something we should try to avoid. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
