From: Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
To: edumazet@google.com, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: alexanderduyck@fb.com, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
lkp@intel.com, peterz@infradead.org, x86@kernel.org,
goldstein.w.n@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/core 1/1] arch/x86/um/../lib/csum-partial_64.c:98:12: error: implicit declaration of function 'load_unaligned_zeropad'
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 19:58:57 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <619eee05.1c69fb81.4b686.4bbc@mx.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANn89i+K6=Kc0weayD_phAPn9YT=2UUje+1BZfg=kUiLp7ELqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:57 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> Unless fixups can be handled, the signature of the function needs to
> be different.
>
> In UM, we would need to provide a number of bytes that can be read.
We can make this a bit less ugly of course.
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c b/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
index 5ec35626945b6db2f7f41c6d46d5e422810eac46..7a3c4e7e05c4b21566e1ee3813a071509a9d54ff
100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
@@ -21,6 +21,25 @@ static inline unsigned short from32to16(unsigned a)
return b;
}
+
+static inline unsigned long load_partial_long(const void *buff, int len)
+{
+#ifndef CONFIG_DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS
+ union {
+ unsigned long ulval;
+ u8 bytes[sizeof(long)];
+ } v;
+
+ v.ulval = 0;
+ memcpy(v.bytes, buff, len);
+ return v.ulval;
+#else
+ unsigned int shift = (sizeof(long) - len) * BITS_PER_BYTE;
+
+ return (load_unaligned_zeropad(buff) << shift) >> shift;
+#endif
+}
+
/*
* Do a checksum on an arbitrary memory area.
* Returns a 32bit checksum.
@@ -91,11 +110,9 @@ __wsum csum_partial(const void *buff, int len, __wsum sum)
: "memory");
buff += 8;
}
- if (len & 7) {
- unsigned int shift = (8 - (len & 7)) * 8;
- unsigned long trail;
-
- trail = (load_unaligned_zeropad(buff) << shift) >> shift;
+ len &= 7;
+ if (len) {
+ unsigned long trail = load_partial_long(buff, len);
asm("addq %[trail],%[res]\n\t"
"adcq $0,%[res]"
Hi, I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but I noticed that the output
of 'csum_partial' is different after this patch. I figured that the checksum
algorithm is fixed so just wanted mention it incase its a bug. If not sorry
for the spam.
Example on x86_64:
Buff: [ 87, b3, 92, b7, 8b, 53, 96, db, cd, 0f, 7e, 7e ]
len : 11
sum : 0
csum_partial new : 2480936615
csum_partial HEAD: 2472089390
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
To: kbuild-all@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/core 1/1] arch/x86/um/../lib/csum-partial_64.c:98:12: error: implicit declaration of function 'load_unaligned_zeropad'
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 19:58:57 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <619eee05.1c69fb81.4b686.4bbc@mx.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANn89i+K6=Kc0weayD_phAPn9YT=2UUje+1BZfg=kUiLp7ELqQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2299 bytes --]
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:57 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> Unless fixups can be handled, the signature of the function needs to
> be different.
>
> In UM, we would need to provide a number of bytes that can be read.
We can make this a bit less ugly of course.
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c b/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
index 5ec35626945b6db2f7f41c6d46d5e422810eac46..7a3c4e7e05c4b21566e1ee3813a071509a9d54ff
100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
@@ -21,6 +21,25 @@ static inline unsigned short from32to16(unsigned a)
return b;
}
+
+static inline unsigned long load_partial_long(const void *buff, int len)
+{
+#ifndef CONFIG_DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS
+ union {
+ unsigned long ulval;
+ u8 bytes[sizeof(long)];
+ } v;
+
+ v.ulval = 0;
+ memcpy(v.bytes, buff, len);
+ return v.ulval;
+#else
+ unsigned int shift = (sizeof(long) - len) * BITS_PER_BYTE;
+
+ return (load_unaligned_zeropad(buff) << shift) >> shift;
+#endif
+}
+
/*
* Do a checksum on an arbitrary memory area.
* Returns a 32bit checksum.
@@ -91,11 +110,9 @@ __wsum csum_partial(const void *buff, int len, __wsum sum)
: "memory");
buff += 8;
}
- if (len & 7) {
- unsigned int shift = (8 - (len & 7)) * 8;
- unsigned long trail;
-
- trail = (load_unaligned_zeropad(buff) << shift) >> shift;
+ len &= 7;
+ if (len) {
+ unsigned long trail = load_partial_long(buff, len);
asm("addq %[trail],%[res]\n\t"
"adcq $0,%[res]"
Hi, I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but I noticed that the output
of 'csum_partial' is different after this patch. I figured that the checksum
algorithm is fixed so just wanted mention it incase its a bug. If not sorry
for the spam.
Example on x86_64:
Buff: [ 87, b3, 92, b7, 8b, 53, 96, db, cd, 0f, 7e, 7e ]
len : 11
sum : 0
csum_partial new : 2480936615
csum_partial HEAD: 2472089390
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
To: edumazet@google.com, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: alexanderduyck@fb.com, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
lkp@intel.com, peterz@infradead.org, x86@kernel.org,
goldstein.w.n@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/core 1/1] arch/x86/um/../lib/csum-partial_64.c:98:12: error: implicit declaration of function 'load_unaligned_zeropad'
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 19:58:57 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <619eee05.1c69fb81.4b686.4bbc@mx.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANn89i+K6=Kc0weayD_phAPn9YT=2UUje+1BZfg=kUiLp7ELqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:57 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> Unless fixups can be handled, the signature of the function needs to
> be different.
>
> In UM, we would need to provide a number of bytes that can be read.
We can make this a bit less ugly of course.
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c b/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
index 5ec35626945b6db2f7f41c6d46d5e422810eac46..7a3c4e7e05c4b21566e1ee3813a071509a9d54ff
100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
@@ -21,6 +21,25 @@ static inline unsigned short from32to16(unsigned a)
return b;
}
+
+static inline unsigned long load_partial_long(const void *buff, int len)
+{
+#ifndef CONFIG_DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS
+ union {
+ unsigned long ulval;
+ u8 bytes[sizeof(long)];
+ } v;
+
+ v.ulval = 0;
+ memcpy(v.bytes, buff, len);
+ return v.ulval;
+#else
+ unsigned int shift = (sizeof(long) - len) * BITS_PER_BYTE;
+
+ return (load_unaligned_zeropad(buff) << shift) >> shift;
+#endif
+}
+
/*
* Do a checksum on an arbitrary memory area.
* Returns a 32bit checksum.
@@ -91,11 +110,9 @@ __wsum csum_partial(const void *buff, int len, __wsum sum)
: "memory");
buff += 8;
}
- if (len & 7) {
- unsigned int shift = (8 - (len & 7)) * 8;
- unsigned long trail;
-
- trail = (load_unaligned_zeropad(buff) << shift) >> shift;
+ len &= 7;
+ if (len) {
+ unsigned long trail = load_partial_long(buff, len);
asm("addq %[trail],%[res]\n\t"
"adcq $0,%[res]"
Hi, I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but I noticed that the output
of 'csum_partial' is different after this patch. I figured that the checksum
algorithm is fixed so just wanted mention it incase its a bug. If not sorry
for the spam.
Example on x86_64:
Buff: [ 87, b3, 92, b7, 8b, 53, 96, db, cd, 0f, 7e, 7e ]
len : 11
sum : 0
csum_partial new : 2480936615
csum_partial HEAD: 2472089390
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-25 1:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-17 18:45 [tip:x86/core 1/1] arch/x86/um/../lib/csum-partial_64.c:98:12: error: implicit declaration of function 'load_unaligned_zeropad' kernel test robot
2021-11-17 18:45 ` kernel test robot
2021-11-17 18:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-17 18:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-17 19:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-17 19:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-18 16:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-18 16:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-18 16:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-18 16:26 ` Johannes Berg
2021-11-18 16:26 ` Johannes Berg
2021-11-18 16:26 ` Johannes Berg
2021-11-18 16:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-18 16:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-18 16:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-18 17:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-18 17:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-18 17:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 1:58 ` Noah Goldstein [this message]
2021-11-25 1:58 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 1:58 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 2:56 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 2:56 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 2:56 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 3:41 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 3:41 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 3:41 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 4:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 4:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 4:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 4:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 4:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 4:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 4:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 4:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 4:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 4:56 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 4:56 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 4:56 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 5:09 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 5:09 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 5:09 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 6:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 6:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 6:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 6:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 6:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 6:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 6:49 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 6:49 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 6:49 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 6:47 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 6:47 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25 6:47 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-26 17:18 ` David Laight
2021-11-26 17:18 ` David Laight
2021-11-26 17:18 ` David Laight
2021-11-26 18:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-26 18:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-26 18:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-26 22:41 ` David Laight
2021-11-26 22:41 ` David Laight
2021-11-26 22:41 ` David Laight
2021-11-26 23:04 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-26 23:04 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-26 23:04 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-28 18:30 ` David Laight
2021-11-28 18:30 ` David Laight
2021-11-28 18:30 ` David Laight
2021-12-29 6:00 ` Al Viro
2021-12-29 6:00 ` Al Viro
2021-12-29 6:00 ` Al Viro
2022-01-31 2:29 ` Al Viro
2022-01-31 2:29 ` Al Viro
2022-01-31 2:29 ` Al Viro
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=619eee05.1c69fb81.4b686.4bbc@mx.google.com \
--to=goldstein.w.n@gmail.com \
--cc=alexanderduyck@fb.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=kbuild-all@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-um@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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.