On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 11:30:29AM +0200, Julius Volz wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 12:04:20PM +1000, Simon Horman wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> The impetus for this series of patches is Julian Anastasov noting > >> that "load balance IPv4 connections from a local process" checks > >> for 0 TCP checksums. Herbert Xu confirmed that this is not legal, > >> even on loopback traffic, but that rather partial checksums are > >> possible. > >> > >> The first patch in this series is a proposed solution to handle > >> partial checksums for both TCP and UDP. > >> > >> The other two patches clean things up a bit. > >> > >> I have not tested this code beyond compilation yet. > > > > After extensive testing by Julius Volz and limited testing by myself, I > > have applied the first patch, which does indeed allow packets with > > PARTIAL_CHECKSUM to work, to lvs-next-2.6. I have dropped the second two > > patches which produce bogus checksums. > > Great, thanks! I have tested TCP+UDP, local+remote clients, v4+v6, > NAT+DSR+TUN in all combinations that are expected to be working and > found no problems. Thanks once again for your testing. I'll send a pull request to Dave in the morning. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
