On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> Besides, I've done some more testing last night, and there are some
> problems. The FP doesn't seem to like tinygrams too much, every once in a
> while (but *not* always) it decides to send one with a bad checksum. I'm
> talking especially about telnet tinygrams, where the second fragment is 1
> byte. What's worse, it will also resend it with a bad checksum,
> effectively killing the connection.
>
> Could this be a bug in the upper layers, instead? How would I go about to
> verify this? The only way I can think of is to verify that the checksum
> field is zero initially, correct?
[...]
> So I want to try and switch the transmit descriptor to the one used by
> Netware, maybe the firmware was only tested with that descriptor. It also
> fits the new Linux model a bit better, as it has one descriptor per
> packet, not one per fragment (like the current implementation).
So, I've re-implemented the Tx code to use the type0 Tx descriptor, and
the code is definitely cleaner. However, the card still has an issue with
tinygrams. A TCP packet whose second fragment is 1-byte long usually goes
over the wire with the wrong checksum. If the second fragment is 3-byte
long, it is checksummed correctly (so it's not an even/odd problem).
Any ideas? Is there even the slightest chance that something might not be
ok in the skb received from above?
Thanks,
Ion
--
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 21:00:26 EST