On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:41:40 -0800
David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Andrew May wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:05:06 -0800
> > David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-defines.h | 3 ---
> >> drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-tx.c | 8 ++++----
> >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-defines.h
> >> b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-defines.h index 9c4910e..00a8561
> >> 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-defines.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-defines.h
> >> @@ -98,9 +98,6 @@
> >> #define MAX_SKB_TO_FREE 10
> >> #define MAX_OUT_QUEUE_DEPTH 1000
> >>
> >> -#define IP_PROTOCOL_TCP 6
> >> -#define IP_PROTOCOL_UDP 0x11
> >> -
> >> #define FAU_NUM_PACKET_BUFFERS_TO_FREE (CVMX_FAU_REG_END -
> >> sizeof(uint32_t)) #define TOTAL_NUMBER_OF_PORTS
> >> (CVMX_PIP_NUM_INPUT_PORTS+1)
> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-tx.c
> >> b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-tx.c index bc67e41..62258bd
> >> 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-tx.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-tx.c
> >> @@ -359,8 +359,8 @@ dont_put_skbuff_in_hw:
> >> if (USE_HW_TCPUDP_CHECKSUM && (skb->protocol ==
> >> htons(ETH_P_IP)) && (ip_hdr(skb)->version == 4) &&
> >> (ip_hdr(skb)->ihl == 5) && ((ip_hdr(skb)->frag_off == 0) ||
> >> (ip_hdr(skb)->frag_off == 1 << 14))
> >> - && ((ip_hdr(skb)->protocol == IP_PROTOCOL_TCP)
> >> - || (ip_hdr(skb)->protocol == IP_PROTOCOL_UDP))) {
> >> + && ((ip_hdr(skb)->protocol == IPPROTO_TCP)
> >> + || (ip_hdr(skb)->protocol == IPPROTO_UDP))) {
> >> /* Use hardware checksum calc */
> >> pko_command.s.ipoffp1 = sizeof(struct ethhdr) + 1;
> >> }
> >
> > Why isn't skb->ip_summed checked here instead?
>
> That may indeed be the correct thing to do, but the main point of
> this particular patch is to remove local definitions that mirror
> definitions provided by core include files.
>
> So in order to not let 'the perfect be the enemy of the good' I think
> this patch should be applied.
I am not against the patch being applied. I also don't think I have
any sort of influence to get it rejected. But in seeing the code it is
just something that jumps out at me, and I wanted to make sure I wasn't
missing something else.
> Indeed it does. Actually it writes a good checksum on *all* IP
> packets without regard to their source.
That seems like a very bad thing. Maybe the entire section of code
should be removed along with the defines for now.
I don't actually have one of these chips at home to play with and test.
