From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 16:37:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20151204.163701.1543607078191101626.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1449259145.6236.458303617.55CF2C4E@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20151204.150633.1744714566987717806.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hannes@stressinduktion.org, linville@tuxdriver.com, jesse@kernel.org, anjali.singhai@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kiran.patil@intel.com To: tom@herbertland.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:44465 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754947AbbLDVhF (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 16:37:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Tom Herbert Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:13:53 -0800 > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:06 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa >> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 20:59:05 +0100 >> >>> Yes, I agree, I am totally with you here. If generic offloading can be >>> realized by NICs I am totally with you that this should be the way to >>> go. I don't see that coming in the next (small number of) years, so I >>> don't see a reason to stop this patchset. >> >> If I just apply this and say "yeah ok", the message is completely lost >> and your prediction about "small number of years" indeed will occur. >> >> However if I push back hard on this, as I will, then the message has >> some chance of seeping back to the people designing these chips. >> >> So that's what I'm going to do, like it or not. >> >> Or can someone convince me that someone who understand this stuff >> is telling the hardware guys to universally put 2's complement >> checksums into the descriptors? >> > We're talking about 1's complement checksum (RFC1701). Just to be clear :-) Right :)