From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [PATCH] e100: Enable receiving bogus packets, and transmitting bad/custom CRC Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:12:49 -0800 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3FDB64B1.5050700@candelatech.com> References: <3FC2931B.3070903@candelatech.com> <20031213200044.B1791@sygehus.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, "David S. Miller" Return-path: To: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen In-Reply-To: <20031213200044.B1791@sygehus.dk> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 03:24:11PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > >>Thanks to those who pointed me in the right direction, here is a patch >>to the e100 (2.4.23-pre9) that allows it to capture all frames, bogons included. >>It also coppies the FCS to the skb so ethereal et al can read it. >> >>It utilizes ethtool commands to get/set the rx-all feature, and uses >>a new flag in the skbuff (and socket struct) structure to determine when to disable generating >>the FCS on transmit. I have the entire patch that adds the management >>bits and flags, but as usual, it's mixed in with various other things... > > > Reading the tulip manual (see below) triggered a question: When transmitting > a custom CRC, who is responsible for padding the frame to the minimum length? > If frame padding is left to the driver, what should be used for padding? Hrm, I have not tested this, as my sending app itself enforces the minimum size. I am guessing that padding is up to the driver/OS in this case, but I'd have to re-read the e100 docs to be sure... > I (or rather, Google) found the tulip documentation at > . The tulip > chips are capable of all these tricks too. Cool, I'll check out this doc soon. If you happen to write up a tulip driver patch for this feature, please let me know. I have lots of 4-port tulip nics to test on here... DaveM: Are you interested in getting these patches into 2.4.24-preX? (It would be helpful to get the infrastructure and ethtool portions in, even if the driver parts remain outside the tree for a bit longer.) Thanks, Ben > -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com