From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fan Du Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 0/5] pktgen IPsec support Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:02:36 +0800 Message-ID: <52A6763C.4050101@windriver.com> References: <1386323614-5077-1-git-send-email-fan.du@windriver.com> <20131209.195854.223825767831436997.davem@davemloft.net> <52A66C0D.4050409@windriver.com> <20131209.202321.2134510956668375662.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: , To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]:59525 "EHLO mail.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751885Ab3LJCCw (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:02:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20131209.202321.2134510956668375662.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2013=E5=B9=B412=E6=9C=8810=E6=97=A5 09:23, David Miller wrote: > From: Fan Du > Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:19:09 +0800 > >> How it could be usable first and then useful for someone before my f= ix >> 9e921193884dd85b4cd68aa18598d8c2f9ad85b9 >> ({pktgen, xfrm} Correct xfrm state lock usage when transforming)??? slip of pen here, should be commit: 3868204d6b89ea373a273e760609cb08020beb1a ("{pktgen, xfrm} Update IPv4 header total len and checksum after transf= ormation") >> Do you really know what this fix does? > > Maybe they didn't care about the checksum being correct in the > testbed they were using. Can I just reply to custom "Yes, wrong checksum value and non-decrypted= packet is not big deal when your peer host receiving them"? > I know Jamal used it when he added the feature. Please re-consider your approach for this patch set, really. --=20 =E6=B5=AE=E6=B2=89=E9=9A=8F=E6=B5=AA=E5=8F=AA=E8=AE=B0=E4=BB=8A=E6=9C=9D= =E7=AC=91 --fan