From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: LRO restructuring? Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:30:11 -0700 Message-ID: <48A0E7A3.6030200@hp.com> References: <48A03EF9.9090602@myri.com> <20080812005033.GA18547@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080811.175434.215224347.davem@davemloft.net> <20080812010004.GD18547@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , gallatin@myri.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, brice@myri.com To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from g1t0028.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.35]:26974 "EHLO g1t0028.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750953AbYHLBaO (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:30:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080812010004.GD18547@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Herbert Xu wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 05:54:34PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > >>And the checksums :-) As an intermediate node we don't want >>to touch the checksum. > > > Yeah if it wasn't verified then we must store this as well. Even if it was verified I think you want to keep the checksums from the header. Since an intermediate device isn't supposed to be peeking at the TCP part anyway, it wouldn't do to drop the segment ourselves, pass it along to be dropped by the ultimate reciever. And if there is something amis in the verification or the regeneration, we don't want to introduce silent data corruption. Likely that also goes for the IP header checksum... rick jones