From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E19A052A; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 23:03:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F2531DA61; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 23:03:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wnew1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wnew1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F93C1D6B0; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 23:03:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440711311; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:03:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= S1MHO7/oN83KVmZQkMCcVrABi64f+HJ2kCdd/VGsYho=; b=A5mjGwkTHO1H0ipw +VKnISVyLkM3dAMAY796eJSxNM9blmGEffnizAb6JD0sdGU7F+f/phsICFtVT8L7 84lrd2Rf5BZrr0UnDtCNXD0PwEQI6COZlsBFYM2tEx0D/L24oX8VDSZqtMvaH770 J545Pzup11/36jjSOFyhSBpSTHRNpGyaEK4TYGD5A1Q/NAey4C7V0Bj6DGPvO5qv Btm0nwDR3b4dbfeYuy78lPQ/Ac8pljNxF2qXbbCL6GpAsIAc5LkQxdzKeqTMdKGr ZpI1ufpl15S19onyux/XEmOzy0g5l8AUAAa+0x5ko5FY5g7sBxzzTpITmym2eMwt nUUB1w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=S1MHO7/oN83KVmZQkMCcVrABi64f+HJ2kCdd/VGsY ho=; b=h6UCzb8hXvuj+C5InwIVJ5FnbThCq6zOhurCjNb10rHyDZqWznZnHAJBK UB1nz0VGjHeATX2vnbcC2bxbVETqdEsDfneqVUGJV16QD2jFWvbo1KeMBkIX+iY1 zFb4emJVhOR5+neccCM7lp55xYACipdEEvQCECs+0ld9ltxuRo/UQVqI2tnWqQLP HOe7oaMKe4yHubvjQRg7uWWByR7VnRudQNhONsQLVs1Zg3K+7ZR3Kd33IR5glt5v B+2vKKMMx5fHtnHVCtSHTYKEnURjEgv/9MZDL09iqj48SJOVltk2Jdu/d/Y2+nKU 8j/m4+wjkFRbiVvFXhYeAZ74GRHmQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrvddugdduieduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A1179328005E; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:03:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Hongzhi Guo Cc: Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, stephen@networkplumber.org, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, nicolas.chautru@intel.com, zhoujingbin@huawei.com, chenchanghu@huawei.com, jerry.lilijun@huawei.com, haifeng.lin@huawei.com, Olivier Matz Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 23:03:25 +0200 Message-ID: <5800181.0yhA9BG2Ld@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20200710144059.GF5869@platinum> References: <20200710065551.59352-1-guohongzhi1@huawei.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C6111B@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <20200710144059.GF5869@platinum> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: fix unneeded replacement of 0 by ffff for TCP checksum X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 10/07/2020 16:40, Olivier Matz: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:55:51PM +0800, Hongzhi Guo wrote: > > > > > > > > Per RFC768: > > > > > > > > If the computed checksum is zero, it is transmitted as all > > > ones. > > > > > > > > An all zero transmitted checksum value means that the > > > transmitter > > > > > > > > generated no checksum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC793 for TCP has no such special treatment for the checksum > > > of > > > > > > > zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 6006818cfb26 ("net: new checksum functions") > > > > > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hongzhi Guo [...] > After reading again your arguments, I think I prefer your first > proposal, which was also Hongzhi's initial submission: > > - * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet > - * or 0 on error > + * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet. > > Thomas, do you want to to resubmit with this change? Applied with all changes in comments.