On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch> wrote: > On 05/27/13 at 10:28am, Jesse Gross wrote: >> On Saturday, May 25, 2013, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 08:02 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: >> > >> > > I ran TCP_CRR to verify the SYN/ACK use case and I did not >> > > observe a difference. If you have any specific test in mind >> > > I will be glad to run that before posting the 2nd revision. >> > >> > I guess you should test with rx checksum disabled as well, Jesse seemed >> > to be concerned about that. >> >> >> I was actually thinking about the transmit side - rx checksum verification >> doesn't matter much here since the result will get thrown away. However, if >> the packet is CHECKSUM_PARTIAL then the checksum will have to get filled in >> first and that's the code path that is a little different now. > > Do we actually need to complete the checksum before doing the > upcall and if so, why? Couldn't the slow path do that if needed? > The only reason I can think of where it would matter is if a > controller injects the packet into another network stack such > as RouteFlow.
Well, this is the slow path. I don't want to force userspace to deal with this because it's an internal kernel optimization that is platform-specific and requires carrying additional metadata around. It's also very common for a packet to traverse another network stack - it's typically a VM's. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
