From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 28 15:58:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF3816A420 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:58:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F39443D49 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:58:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC335C44; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:58:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from pi.codefab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pi.codefab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95283-10; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:58:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-68-160-211-174.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.160.211.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D495C1F; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:58:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43DB94A9.60000@mac.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:58:33 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Koen Martens References: <43DB8EA6.7070503@metro.cx> In-Reply-To: <43DB8EA6.7070503@metro.cx> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at codefab.com Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfilter + bge strangeness X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:58:32 -0000 Koen Martens wrote: [ ... ] > With 5.4, there was only the rxcsum option for the bge card, not a > txcsum. It worked fine with rxcsum enabled on 5.4.. > > What are the consequences of disabling {rx,tx}csum? What is wrong > with enabling it on 6-STABLE? The consequence is your CPU has to spend the time to compute or verify packet checksums, rather than taking advantage of the NIC's hardware support for doing so. As for your second question, not enough data. If you send some test traffic around and capture it with tcpdump with the various settings toggled, someone might be able to notice something, a pattern in the way the checksums are being computed wrong. -- -Chuck