On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 15:27 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > TODO:
> > add checksum offload support to the core and hw devices.
>
> Given this I assume this is just an RFC and you don't expect this to
> be merged as-is, right?
Adding the authors of ehea which what I used as an example.
Yes, please send any comments. I believe we need checksum patches to be
re-generated against latest kernel right?
>
> > +static int get_skb_hdr(struct sk_buff *skb, void **iphdr,
> > + void **tcph, u64 *hdr_flags, void *priv)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int ip_len;
> > + struct iphdr *iph;
> > +
> > + /* FIXME - verify CQE checksum ??? */
> > +
> > + /* non tcp packet */
>
> I don't understand this comment here.
I meant here that I think this is where I have to check with the HW
whether the chekcsum of the packet is correct. I looked at IBM ehea and
couldn't see any explicit such check. Do you think such a test is
required?
>
> > + skb_reset_network_header(skb);
> > + iph = ip_hdr(skb);
> > + if (iph->protocol != IPPROTO_TCP)
> > + return -1;
> > +
> > + ip_len = ip_hdrlen(skb);
> > + skb_set_transport_header(skb, ip_len);
> > + *tcph = tcp_hdr(skb);
> > +
> > + /* check if ip header and tcp header are complete */
> > + if (iph->tot_len < ip_len + tcp_hdrlen(skb))
> > + return -1;
> > +
> > + *hdr_flags = LRO_IPV4 | LRO_TCP;
>
> I don't see anywhere that you test the ethertype for IPv4 vs. IPv6.
> So how do you know you have an IPv4 packet here? I guess you need the
> check before you use ip_hdr() above.
Yes looks like I should add this check. Though I did not see ehea do it.
>
> > + *iphdr = iph;
> > +
> > + return 0;
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
