From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 16 09:25:48 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7650106564A; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:25:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tuexen@fh-muenster.de) Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22FBE8FC0A; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:25:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.121] (p508FBDC1.dip.t-dialin.net [80.143.189.193]) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 322F41C0B4613; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:25:45 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Michael Tuexen In-Reply-To: <17A93DA8-4022-4AA6-B1B2-28CD3E7719C2@lakerest.net> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:25:44 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201003122258.o2CMwqDM039077@svn.freebsd.org> <2F4A2F84-4955-49C2-B25E-BB987BC27815@lakerest.net> <92C0A9B0-9297-4F56-A6A1-603006423230@FreeBSD.org> <4B9B99A9.7040904@incunabulum.net> <17A93DA8-4022-4AA6-B1B2-28CD3E7719C2@lakerest.net> To: Randall Stewart X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, Bruce Simpson , "Robert N. M. Watson" , src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r205104 - in head/sys: dev/xen/netback netinet netinet6 X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:25:48 -0000 Hi Randy, shouldn't be the right fix "for now" that we do not offload SCTP checksum computation for IPv6? The point is the semantic of the CSUM_SCTP flag. I think it means "will csum SCTP for IPv4" as all the other flags (CSUM_TCP, CSUM_UDP). With "for now" I mean "until there is a IPv6 checksum offload infrastructure" (I know, it is on my TODO list). Best regards Michael On Mar 13, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Randall Stewart wrote: > Hmm... M_PROTO* good idea ;-) >=20 >=20 > On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Bruce Simpson wrote: >=20 >> On 03/13/10 13:53, Robert N. M. Watson wrote: >>> On Mar 13, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Randall Stewart wrote: >>>=20 >>>> I could refactor that this way if you want... it would mean a few = more de-ref's and >>>> looking to see if its a v4 or v6 packet and then doing the proper = offset... >>>>=20 >>=20 >> This is the sort of thing which M_PROTO* flags are good for. >>=20 >> Derefs in the hot path should be amortized whenever that makes sense. >>=20 >=20 > ------------------------------ > Randall Stewart > 803-317-4952 (cell) > 803-345-0391(direct) >=20 >=20