netdev
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: A case AGAINST checksum offload

from [David S. Miller] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: A case AGAINST checksum offload
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:29:26 -0800
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0411121925070.8989@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0411121644150.8989@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041112154945.63da5103.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0411121925070.8989@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx 
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:36:35 -0500 (EST)
John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Probably not a big deal (yeah, somethings buggy anyway and needs to be
> fixed or replaced), but I thought it worth pointing out.

It certainly was an interesting viewpoint.  I haven't totally
dismissed your ideas, so please don't get that impression.
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: A case AGAINST checksum offload, John Heffner
Next by Date:  Re: [PATCH] (3/23) sk98: /proc interface related changes, shemminger
Previous by Thread:  Re: A case AGAINST checksum offload, John Heffner
Next by Thread:  Re: A case AGAINST checksum offload, Florian Weimer
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]