On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 04:54:39PM +0400, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > > I preferred optimistic approach: if the checksum comes out correct, > we do not really care, how device calculated it. Probably, it calculated > checksum over wrong data, but got a good checksum. So what? It is > not a crypto digest yet. And if device found wrong checksum, we will > recalculate it anyway.
Agreed. > I would like to add that CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY can be used, when > checksum is really wrong (on loopback), that's why it is not cleared, > when trimming. CHECKSUM_HW can always fall back to CHECKSUM_NONE, > but CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY cannot. Probably, this was bad idea, but > it still means that if some generic function starts to clear it, > all the code using it should be reverified. Actually, I plan to differentiate between RX CHECKSUM_HW and TX CHECKSUM_HW. Now that we have things like Xen it is possible for RX packets to have patial checksums too. When this is done loopback can send TX CHECKSUM_HW packets instead of CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY (I'm currently calling this CHECKSUM_PARTIAL). Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - 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
