On 15.04.21 09:21, Philippe Gerum wrote: > > Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> writes: > >> On 27.03.21 11:19, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>> From: Philippe Gerum <r...@xenomai.org> >>> >>> Since v5.9-rc1, csum_partial_copy_nocheck() forces a zero seed as its >>> last argument to csum_partial(). According to #cc44c17baf7f3, passing >>> a non-zero value would not even yield the proper result on some >>> architectures. >>> >>> Nevertheless, the current ICMP code does expect a non-zero csum seed >>> to be used in the next computation, so let's wrap net_csum_copy() to >>> csum_partial_copy_nocheck() for pre-5.9 kernels, and open code it for >>> later kernels so that we still feed csum_partial() with the user-given >>> csum. We still expect the x86, ARM and arm64 implementations of >>> csum_partial() to do the right thing. >>> >> >> If that issue only affects the ICMP code path, why not only changing >> that, leaving rtskb_copy_and_csum_bits with the benefit of doing copy >> and csum in one step? >> > > As a result of #cc44c17baf7f3, I see no common helper available from the > kernel folding the copy and checksum operations anymore, so I see no way > to keep rtskb_copy_and_csum_bits() as is. Did you find an all-in-one > replacement for csum_partial_copy_nocheck() which would allow a csum > value to be fed in? >
rtskb_copy_and_csum_dev does not need that. Jan -- Siemens AG, T RDA IOT Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
