* Martin Pieuchot <[email protected]> [2015-09-11 13:54]: > On 11/09/15(Fri) 13:28, Henning Brauer wrote: > > Ryan pointed me to this diff and we briefly discussed it; we remain > > convinced that the in-tree approach is better than this. > Could you elaborate why?
Well we've been thru it more than once; the argument presented here was that modifying the cksum instead of verify + recalc is better as it wouldn't hide cksum mismatches if the cksum engines on the NICs we offload to misbehave. After many years with the verify + recalc approach I think it is pretty safe to say that this is of no concern... And given that, the approach that has less and simpler code and makes better use of offloading wins. there's a more elaborate discussion with exactly the same people in teh archives from around the time the cksum rewrite hit the tree, with the same conclusion. -- Henning Brauer, [email protected], [email protected] BS Web Services GmbH, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS. Virtual & Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully Managed Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/
