| To: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: A new driver for Broadcom bcm5706 |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 20 May 2005 21:28:21 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | mchan@xxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, ffan@xxxxxxxxxxxx, lusinsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <428E7A53.1030907@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <428E72F9.3070404@xxxxxxxxx> <20050520.164504.31639000.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <428E7A53.1030907@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: A new driver for Broadcom bcm5706 Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 20:01:23 -0400 > David S.Miller wrote: > > From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 19:30:01 -0400 > > > > > >>Sure. What I'm driving at is that a checksum of zero seems to imply > >>CHECKSUM_NONE not CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY. tg3 only does the 0xffff check. > > > > > > Sure, both ways are fine. > > huh? They are pretty different... one says "Checksum all good, dude" > and the other says "I didn't checksum, do it in software for me." > > right? 0x0000 is the UDP "no checksum" case, so if we say "in software" for that UDP will just let it pass through still, so the effect is that same. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: patch tulip-natsemi-dp83840a-phy-fix.patch added to -mm tree, Grant Grundler |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: A new driver for Broadcom bcm5706, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: A new driver for Broadcom bcm5706, Michael Chan |
| Next by Thread: | Re: A new driver for Broadcom bcm5706, Michael Chan |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |