| To: | Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [IPX]: Fix checksum computation. |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:23:31 -0800 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1067635446.11564.92.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| References: | <200310312006.h9VK62Hh005910@hera.kernel.org> <1067635446.11564.92.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:24:06 -0800
Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why is this a "fix"? Performance?
> It seems more like someone's idea of code neatening.
IPC checksums were being miscomputed in the original code,
we're as mystified as you are as to why it is that:
if (sum & 0x10000) {
sum++;
sum &= 0xffff;
}
works while:
sum = ((sym >> 16) + sum) & 0xffff;
does not. The theory was that it might be some x86 gcc bug,
but looking at the assembler diff Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
(the appletalk maintainer) showed me between the before and
after:
xorl %eax, %eax
- decl %ecx
movb (%ebx), %al
- incl %ebx
addl %eax, %edx
addl %edx, %edx
- movl %edx, %eax
- shrl $16, %eax
- addl %edx, %eax
- movzwl %ax,%edx
+ testl $65536, %edx
+ je .L982
+ incl %edx
+ andl $65535, %edx
+.L982:
+ decl %ecx
+ incl %ebx
cmpl $-1, %ecx
we still can't see what's wrong.
He did confirm that the change in question makes IPX compute checksums
correctly.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [IPX]: Fix checksum computation., Joe Perches |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [IPX]: Fix checksum computation., Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [IPX]: Fix checksum computation., Joe Perches |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [IPX]: Fix checksum computation., Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |