On Sun, 2007-Jan-21 09:32:10 -0500, Louis Mamakos wrote:
>However, since it is a 1's complement checksum, there is a distinguished
>value (all zero bits) that you could set the checksum field to that
>wouldn't occur for a normal computed checksum.
That's a useful idea.
> Since the presence of
Matthew X. Economou wrote:
not very important but wouldn't it be better to set the checksum
to 0 instead of some arbitrary (?) and confusing value then ?
No, as not setting the checksum is a (minor) optimization. Setting that
field to any arbitrary constant means at least one completely
unnece
> not very important but wouldn't it be better to set the checksum
> to 0 instead of some arbitrary (?) and confusing value then ?
No, as not setting the checksum is a (minor) optimization. Setting that
field to any arbitrary constant means at least one completely
unnecessary CPU instruction per
that's very clever indeed ! Well, I was not quite sure it was
actually performing the TCO (not to say I feel stupid ...).
not very important but wouldn't it be better to set the checksum
to 0 instead of some arbitrary (?) and confusing value then ?
thank you anyway,
Roman.
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:34:46PM +0100, Roman Le Houelleur wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> It's been about a year or so that I upgrade my box to RELENG_6
> from time to time. I got some suprises this week, I've seen a
> few things that made me think of hardware problems but some are
> definitly soft.
