public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 <><

  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