From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bin Ren <bin.ren@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Network Checksum Removal
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:53:42 +0100
Message-ID: <8ae780250505231153454e2c09@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050520233015.GA26305@us.ibm.com>
	<32fa5a4ad70f86ee5637d30ffc890017@cl.cam.ac.uk>
	<8ae7802505052311086b44a142@mail.gmail.com>
	<200505231318.10104.jdmason@us.ibm.com>
	<0ffb8e53cf9780f38910a275633e0609@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Reply-To: bin.ren@cl.cam.ac.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <0ffb8e53cf9780f38910a275633e0609@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Jon Mason <jdmason@us.ibm.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Fantastic! It's working :-D

Thanks a great deal,
Bin

On 5/23/05, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>=20
> I think I found the problem, and I've checked in a fix.
>=20
> Bin: can you try dom0->domU networking with latest unstable tree?
> Hopefully your problem is fixed.
>=20
> As further work on this, I think I chose a bad name for the
> 'proto_csum_valid' field because sometimes it is set for local packets
> that have had no csum poked into the packet at all. Something like
> 'proto_data_valid' might be better. And communicating this information
> between domains (i.e., that the csum field is blank, but the packet
> data is known good anyway) would be nice. Then domU can decide to add
> the checksum if it passes the packet off to a context that expects a
> valid checksum.
>=20
>   -- Keir
>=20
> On 23 May 2005, at 19:18, Jon Mason wrote:
>=20
> > thanks Bin,
> > I'll take a look at that.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Monday 23 May 2005 01:08 pm, Bin Ren wrote:
> >> It's via the new vif0.0/veth0. I did tcpdump on vif1.0 in dom0 and saw
> >> packets sent by dom0, but got dropped by the netfront on dom1.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Bin
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>