Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: slicoss: rewrite eeprom checksum code

[David Matlack]

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 9:51 PM, David Matlack <matlackdavid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The if seems unnecessary.
>>
>> Perhaps declare a u16 return var or use
>>
>>         return lower_16 + upper_16;
>
> I agree it's fishy... but using overflow doesn't produce the same result:
>
>          (u16) 65536   == 0
>          65536 - 65535 == 1
>
> Now which is the correct result, I have no idea.

I think the checksum algorithm being used here is RFC 1071 [1]. Which means the
if is correct and just accounting for double overflow.

> The eeprom on this device is
> small (0x80 bytes max, not enough to trigger overflow) and I have no

Sorry, I was wrong about this. I was thinking in terms of summing bytes,
but the checksum is summing words. Overflow _does_ get triggered.


I think I'll go over this patch again while looking at the RFC to make sure
everything is ok. Thanks!

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1071
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/