From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
To: Jacek Kowalski <jacek@jacekk.info>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vlad URSU <vlad@ursu.me>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3 2/2] e1000e: ignore factory-default checksum value on TGP platform
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 10:36:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250629103620.186ea33d@pumpkin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <613026c7-319c-480f-83da-ffc85faaf42b@jacekk.info>
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 15:05:01 +0200
Jacek Kowalski <jacek@jacekk.info> wrote:
> >>>> +#define NVM_CHECKSUM_FACTORY_DEFAULT 0xFFFF
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps it is too long, but I liked Vlad's suggestion of naming this
> >>> NVM_CHECKSUM_WORD_FACTORY_DEFAULT.
>
> So the proposals are:
>
> 1. NVM_CHECKSUM_WORD_FACTORY_DEFAULT
> 2. NVM_CHECKSUM_FACTORY_DEFAULT
> 3. NVM_CHECKSUM_INVALID
> 4. NVM_CHECKSUM_MISSING
> 5. NVM_CHECKSUM_EMPTY
> 6. NVM_NO_CHECKSUM
>
> Any other contenders?
>
0xffff
With a comment saying some manufacturers don't calculate the checksum.
Then you don't needs to search the definition to find out what is going on.
David
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
To: Jacek Kowalski <jacek@jacekk.info>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vlad URSU <vlad@ursu.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] e1000e: ignore factory-default checksum value on TGP platform
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 10:36:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250629103620.186ea33d@pumpkin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <613026c7-319c-480f-83da-ffc85faaf42b@jacekk.info>
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 15:05:01 +0200
Jacek Kowalski <jacek@jacekk.info> wrote:
> >>>> +#define NVM_CHECKSUM_FACTORY_DEFAULT 0xFFFF
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps it is too long, but I liked Vlad's suggestion of naming this
> >>> NVM_CHECKSUM_WORD_FACTORY_DEFAULT.
>
> So the proposals are:
>
> 1. NVM_CHECKSUM_WORD_FACTORY_DEFAULT
> 2. NVM_CHECKSUM_FACTORY_DEFAULT
> 3. NVM_CHECKSUM_INVALID
> 4. NVM_CHECKSUM_MISSING
> 5. NVM_CHECKSUM_EMPTY
> 6. NVM_NO_CHECKSUM
>
> Any other contenders?
>
0xffff
With a comment saying some manufacturers don't calculate the checksum.
Then you don't needs to search the definition to find out what is going on.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-29 9:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-24 19:07 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3 1/2] e1000e: disregard NVM checksum on tgp when valid checksum mask is not set Jacek Kowalski
2025-06-24 19:07 ` Jacek Kowalski
2025-06-24 19:14 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3 2/2] e1000e: ignore factory-default checksum value on TGP platform Jacek Kowalski
2025-06-24 19:14 ` Jacek Kowalski
2025-06-24 19:42 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Simon Horman
2025-06-24 19:42 ` Simon Horman
2025-06-24 21:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jacek Kowalski
2025-06-24 21:05 ` Jacek Kowalski
2025-06-25 9:44 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Simon Horman
2025-06-25 9:44 ` Simon Horman
2025-06-25 13:05 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jacek Kowalski
2025-06-25 13:05 ` Jacek Kowalski
2025-06-25 14:06 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vlad URSU
2025-06-25 14:06 ` Vlad URSU
2025-06-25 17:00 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Simon Horman
2025-06-25 17:00 ` Simon Horman
2025-06-25 17:10 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Ruinskiy, Dima
2025-06-29 9:36 ` David Laight [this message]
2025-06-29 9:36 ` David Laight
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=20250629103620.186ea33d@pumpkin \
--to=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=jacek@jacekk.info \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com \
--cc=vlad@ursu.me \
/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.