From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Allow NICs to pass Frame Checksum up the stack. Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:58:00 -0700 Message-ID: <4DFE8D08.7070101@candelatech.com> References: <4DFBC00F.4000500@candelatech.com> <20110619.162141.790923043226083093.davem@davemloft.net> <4DFE8B83.3040501@candelatech.com> <20110619.165456.1382315060825422595.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bhutchings@solarflare.com, mirqus@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:44568 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754939Ab1FSX6E (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:58:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110619.165456.1382315060825422595.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/19/2011 04:54 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Greear > Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:51:31 -0700 > >> The last email in the features thread that I saw was a question to >> you. > > I'm frustrated with the author because he keeps submitting what > amounts to schemes that have the same problem or are incredibly ugly, > and it's becomming a waste of my time to continue discussing the > matter. > >> Is the original author's work worth trying to salvage, or should >> the next person to attempt this ignore all that and start fresh? > > The above should make that obvious. Well, do you have a suggested plan of attack for this? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com