Re: [PATCH] IPv6: optimize echo reply checksum calculation

2006-11-10 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 04:06:52PM -0500, Brian Haley wrote: > Al Viro wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 02:04:32PM -0500, Brian Haley wrote: > >>Al Viro wrote: > >>>so -= 1 is broken even on ia64 and it's *always* broken on big-endian > >>>boxen. > >>It's not broken in ia64, I've tested that, just

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: optimize echo reply checksum calculation

2006-11-10 Thread Brian Haley
Al Viro wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 02:04:32PM -0500, Brian Haley wrote: Al Viro wrote: so -= 1 is broken even on ia64 and it's *always* broken on big-endian boxen. It's not broken in ia64, I've tested that, just don't have an x86 for testing right now. Can you please apply these changes a

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: optimize echo reply checksum calculation

2006-11-10 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 02:04:32PM -0500, Brian Haley wrote: > Al Viro wrote: > >so -= 1 is broken even on ia64 and it's *always* broken on big-endian > >boxen. > > It's not broken in ia64, I've tested that, just don't have an x86 for > testing right now. Can you please apply these changes and p

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: optimize echo reply checksum calculation

2006-11-10 Thread Brian Haley
Al Viro wrote: so -= 1 is broken even on ia64 and it's *always* broken on big-endian boxen. It's not broken in ia64, I've tested that, just don't have an x86 for testing right now. Can you please apply these changes and prove it's broken? This little trick has been done in other UNIXes for

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: optimize echo reply checksum calculation

2006-11-10 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 06:05:34PM +, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:51:19PM -0500, Brian Haley wrote: > > Al Viro wrote: > > >On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:25:53AM -0500, Brian Haley wrote: > > >>Since the only difference between echo requests and echo replies is the > > >>ICMPv6 ty

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: optimize echo reply checksum calculation

2006-11-10 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:51:19PM -0500, Brian Haley wrote: > Al Viro wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:25:53AM -0500, Brian Haley wrote: > >>Since the only difference between echo requests and echo replies is the > >>ICMPv6 type value (which is a difference of 1), just subtracting one > >>fr

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: optimize echo reply checksum calculation

2006-11-10 Thread Brian Haley
Al Viro wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:25:53AM -0500, Brian Haley wrote: Since the only difference between echo requests and echo replies is the ICMPv6 type value (which is a difference of 1), just subtracting one from the request checksum will result in the correct checksum for the reply.

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: optimize echo reply checksum calculation

2006-11-10 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:25:53AM -0500, Brian Haley wrote: > Since the only difference between echo requests and echo replies is the > ICMPv6 type value (which is a difference of 1), just subtracting one > from the request checksum will result in the correct checksum for the reply. Um, no. Th

[PATCH] IPv6: optimize echo reply checksum calculation

2006-11-10 Thread Brian Haley
Since the only difference between echo requests and echo replies is the ICMPv6 type value (which is a difference of 1), just subtracting one from the request checksum will result in the correct checksum for the reply. Signed-off-by: Brian Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> diff --git a/net/ipv6/icmp.c b