From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Mar 26 13:50:26 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F8337B405
	for <cvs-src@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:50:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CE40A43FAF
	for <cvs-src@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:50:25 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com)
Received: (qmail 28137 invoked by uid 1000); 26 Mar 2003 21:50:27 -0000
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:50:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030325231814.L1448@odysseus.silby.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0303260956250.27748-100000@root.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-21.2 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
	      REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE
	autolearn=ham	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Checksum/copy (was: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_output.c)
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:50:28 -0000

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Doug Ambrisko wrote:
> > Maybe an extent count could be used that said how long the chain is.
> >
> > As Sam mentioned having little things scattered around is not good thing.
> > Memory and CPU can be a lot faster then the I/O bus.
> >
> > Doug A.
> 
> I think we could inexpensively walk the mbuf chain at the end of ip_output
> and do the counting there.  Realistically, the same chain will be rewalked
> very soon afterword when the network card tries to set up the DMA
> transfers / etc.

I don't want to hijack the thread too much, but has thought gone into a
combined checksum and copy function?  The first mention I can remember of
this is in RFC 817 p. 19-20.

-Nate