Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:57:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> Cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>, "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>, <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: TCP&IP cksum offload on FreeBSD 4.2 Message-ID: <15283.19536.410864.339942@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109270929410.27057-100000@snaresland.acl.lanl.gov> References: <15283.14648.430630.163513@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109270929410.27057-100000@snaresland.acl.lanl.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ronald G Minnich writes: > > you still have a potential problem here with variance in chipsets, namely > the case of broken ABORT or other unusual PCI cycle handling (missed word > problem). I agree it's a low probability. But we've seen it, just a week > or two ago on a brand new box. > > But then we tend to see things here nobody else sees due to our scale. > > ron At this level, you're basically screwed. A sofware checksum isn't even an option on other PCI users, like disk controllers. If you don't trust your PCI chipset, what do you do about things like that? I'm rather curious -- what was the problematic hardware combination? Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15283.19536.410864.339942>