netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A new driver for Broadcom bcm5706

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@pobox.com>
References: <428E72F9.3070404@pobox.com> <20050520.164504.31639000.davem@davemloft.net> <428E7A53.1030907@pobox.com>
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.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>