[Top] [All Lists]

Re: skb_checksum_help

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: skb_checksum_help
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:24:31 +0100
Cc: herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kaber@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050124180354.63ae600d.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <41F50B6C.6010107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050124151510.GV23931@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050124225423.GA15405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050124234515.GA31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050125000759.GA15883@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050124164049.3b939791.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050125014538.GB31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050125014838.GA16637@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050125020118.GC31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050124180354.63ae600d.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
* David S. Miller <20050124180354.63ae600d.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-01-24 18:03
> > * Herbert Xu <20050125014838.GA16637@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-01-25 12:48
> > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:45:38AM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > The packets get routed back over the same physical interface.
> I think I see what is happening, it's the virtual VLAN device which
> has dev->features set to zero not the acenic's netdev struct.

This of course explains it, didn't think of that. I thought it would
inherit the checksumming features.

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