From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add checksum selftest
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:24:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200906241724.30947.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8bd0f97a0906240745t3a11329fg3ffc6dfb0aa3dec5@mail.gmail.com>
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> +static unsigned char __initdata do_csum_data1[] = {
> >> + 0x20,
> >> +};
> >> +static unsigned char __initdata do_csum_data2[] = {
> >> + 0x0d, 0x0a,
> >> +};
> >> +static unsigned char __initdata do_csum_data3[] = {
> >> + 0xff, 0xfb, 0x01,
> >> +};
> >
> > You define separate test vectors for each of the three
> > cases, which looks like it could be optimized by reusing
> > the same test vectors for each case.
>
> i'm not really familiar with the interfaces to figure out how to do
> this ... i just added some printks to dump arguments/buffers and then
> copied & pasted ones that looked pretty different
I just mean you can consolidate
+struct do_csum_data {
+ unsigned short ret;
+ unsigned char *buff;
+ int len;
+};
+#define DO_CSUM_DATA(_num, _ret) \
+{ \
+ .ret = _ret, \
+ .buff = do_csum_data##_num, \
+ .len = ARRAY_SIZE(do_csum_data##_num), \
+}
and
+struct csum_partial_data {
+ __wsum ret;
+ const void *buff;
+ int len;
+ __wsum wsum;
+};
+#define CSUM_PARTIAL_DATA(_num, _ret, _wsum) \
+{ \
+ .ret = _ret, \
+ .buff = csum_partial_data##_num, \
+ .len = ARRAY_SIZE(csum_partial_data##_num), \
+ .wsum = _wsum, \
+}
into something like
struct csum_combined_check_data {
const char *buff;
int len;
unsigned short do_csum_ret;
__wsum wsum;
unsigned short csum_partial_ret;
};
#define CSUM_COMBINED_TEST_DATA(_num, _do_csum_ret, \
_csum_partial_ret, _wsum) \
{ \
.buff = csum_partial_data##_num, \
.len = ARRAY_SIZE(csum_partial_data##_num), \
.do_csum_ret = _do_csum_ret, \
.wsum = _wsum, \
.csum_partial_ret = csum_partial_ret, \
};
This could cut down the length of the module significantly,
without changing any of the semantics.
> >> +static struct csum_partial_data __initdata csum_partial_data[] = {
> >> + CSUM_PARTIAL_DATA(1, 0x00000074, 0x0),
> >> + CSUM_PARTIAL_DATA(2, 0x00000a0d, 0x0),
> >> + CSUM_PARTIAL_DATA(3, 0x0000fe00, 0x0),
> >> + CSUM_PARTIAL_DATA(5, 0x00005084, 0x0),
> >> + CSUM_PARTIAL_DATA(8, 0x1101eefe, 0x11016a80),
> >> + CSUM_PARTIAL_DATA(8b, 0x00008781, 0x847e),
> >> + CSUM_PARTIAL_DATA(9, 0x1101eefe, 0x11016b80),
> >> +};
> >
> > For partial checksums, the result has to be folded into a 16-bit
> > number using csum_fold(), because csum_partial and other functions
> > return a 32-bit __wsum that can take many equivalent values taht
> > are all correct.
>
> i hear your words, but i understand them not ;)
The problem is that IP checksumming is only defined for 16-bit
words. We use __wsum (32 bits) as an intermediate in the networking
stack so we can consolidate the folding in one place. If you have
a test vector that results in checksum 0xffff (as a well-formed
packet should), the __wsum could be one of 0x0000ffff, 0xffff0000,
0xffffffff, 0x1234edcb, for any other value x where
(((x >> 16) + (x & 0xffff)) >> 16 + ((x >> 16) + (x & 0xffff)))
& 0xffff = 0xffff. The specific __wsum returned by csum_partial()
is implementation specific, so you cannot compare it to a
precomputed value unless sending it through csum_fold().
Arnd <><
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-24 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-24 13:31 [PATCH] add checksum selftest Mike Frysinger
2009-06-24 14:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-06-24 14:45 ` Mike Frysinger
2009-06-24 15:24 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2009-06-24 19:43 ` Mike Frysinger
2009-06-25 10:55 ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-07-06 8:12 ` Michal Simek
2009-07-06 8:24 ` Mike Frysinger
2009-07-06 8:51 ` Michal Simek
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=200906241724.30947.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vapier.adi@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox