Signed-off-by: Edward Cree
---
net/ipv4/ip_gre.c | 16 +---
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_gre.c b/net/ipv4/ip_gre.c
index 7c51c4e..9b31532 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/ip_gre.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/ip_gre.c
@@ -440,6 +440,17 @@ drop:
return 0;
Alexander Duyck wrote:
There isn't any need to add such an indication, nor do we need to
start bitflipping the return value from csum_fold in all cases. I
think there was just some confusion about UDP checksums vs GRE or TCP
checksums.
Yeah. I think I finally got there. The naive software me
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Alexander Duyck
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Rustad, Mark D
>> wrote:
>>> Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>
Actually you may want to go the other way on that. If they weren't
flipping t
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Rustad, Mark D
> wrote:
>> Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>
>>> Actually you may want to go the other way on that. If they weren't
>>> flipping the checksum value for GRE before why should we start doing
>>> t
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Rustad, Mark D
wrote:
> Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
>> Actually you may want to go the other way on that. If they weren't
>> flipping the checksum value for GRE before why should we start doing
>> that now? I'm pretty sure the checksum mangling is a very UDP centr
Alexander Duyck wrote:
Actually you may want to go the other way on that. If they weren't
flipping the checksum value for GRE before why should we start doing
that now? I'm pretty sure the checksum mangling is a very UDP centric
thing. There is no need to introduce it to other protocols.
I
