From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [net PATCH 0/2] Don't use lco_csum to compute IPv4 checksum
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:15:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1480540522.2377.18.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161130.094746.724735454244491985.davem@davemloft.net>
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 09:47 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:42:18 -0500
>
> > When I implemented the GSO partial support in the Intel drivers I was
> using
> > lco_csum to compute the checksum that we needed to plug into the IPv4
> > checksum field in order to cancel out the data that was not a part of
> the
> > IPv4 header.? However this didn't take into account that the transport
> > offset might be pointing to the inner transport header.
> >?
> > Instead of using lco_csum I have just coded around it so that we can
> use
> > the outer IP header plus the IP header length to determine where we
> need to
> > start our checksum and then just call csum_partial ourselves.
> >?
> > This should fix the SIT issue reported on igb interfaces as well as
> simliar
> > issues that would pop up on other Intel NICs.
>
> Jeff, are you going to send me a pull request with this stuff or would
> you be OK with my applying these directly to 'net'?
Go ahead and apply those to your net tree, I do not want to hold this up.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/attachments/20161130/a9607036/attachment.asc>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
sfr@canb.auug.org.au
Subject: Re: [net PATCH 0/2] Don't use lco_csum to compute IPv4 checksum
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:15:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1480540522.2377.18.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161130.094746.724735454244491985.davem@davemloft.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1124 bytes --]
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 09:47 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:42:18 -0500
>
> > When I implemented the GSO partial support in the Intel drivers I was
> using
> > lco_csum to compute the checksum that we needed to plug into the IPv4
> > checksum field in order to cancel out the data that was not a part of
> the
> > IPv4 header. However this didn't take into account that the transport
> > offset might be pointing to the inner transport header.
> >
> > Instead of using lco_csum I have just coded around it so that we can
> use
> > the outer IP header plus the IP header length to determine where we
> need to
> > start our checksum and then just call csum_partial ourselves.
> >
> > This should fix the SIT issue reported on igb interfaces as well as
> simliar
> > issues that would pop up on other Intel NICs.
>
> Jeff, are you going to send me a pull request with this stuff or would
> you be OK with my applying these directly to 'net'?
Go ahead and apply those to your net tree, I do not want to hold this up.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-30 21:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-28 15:42 [Intel-wired-lan] [net PATCH 0/2] Don't use lco_csum to compute IPv4 checksum Alexander Duyck
2016-11-28 15:42 ` Alexander Duyck
2016-11-28 15:42 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [net PATCH 1/2] igb/igbvf: " Alexander Duyck
2016-11-28 15:42 ` Alexander Duyck
2016-11-28 15:42 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [net PATCH 2/2] ixgbe/ixgbevf: " Alexander Duyck
2016-11-28 15:42 ` Alexander Duyck
2016-11-28 22:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [net PATCH 0/2] " Jeff Kirsher
2016-11-28 22:26 ` Jeff Kirsher
2016-11-28 23:43 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Stephen Rothwell
2016-11-28 23:43 ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-11-29 9:07 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Stephen Rothwell
2016-11-29 9:07 ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-01-11 23:19 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Stephen Rothwell
2017-01-11 23:19 ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-11-30 14:47 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " David Miller
2016-11-30 14:47 ` David Miller
2016-11-30 21:15 ` Jeff Kirsher [this message]
2016-11-30 21:15 ` Jeff Kirsher
2016-12-01 20:41 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " David Miller
2016-12-01 20:41 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1480540522.2377.18.camel@intel.com \
--to=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.