Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1/23/20 9:21 AM, Florian Westphal wrote: > > So, AFAIU from what you're saying above the patch seems fine as-is and > > just needs a more verbose commit message explaining why replace16() > > doesn't update skb->csum while all the other ones do. > > > > Is that correct? > > Probably better a comment in the code to avoid confusion on why it's not done in > inet_proto_csum_replace16() but all the other cases; mainly to avoid some folks > in future sending random cleanup patches w/ removal attempts. Makes sense, thanks! Praveen, can you spin a v4 with a comment in replace16 that it intentionally elides the skb->csum update because the function is only used by ipv6? Thanks!
