From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 22 21:43:43 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD121065672; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:43:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A688FC18; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:43:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09C413FB48; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:43:41 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: YghMKL1JlI5bbDccfdCZnC9i+ENY/DY7dIdsmXbjsXXe 1219441421 Received: from empiric.lon.incunabulum.net (82-35-112-254.cable.ubr07.dals.blueyonder.co.uk [82.35.112.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F31913080; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <48AF330B.4010802@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:43:39 +0100 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080514) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gnn@FreeBSD.org References: <20080821203519.GA51534@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <48AE23FF.9070009@FreeBSD.org> <48AF08B7.4090804@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Luigi Rizzo , net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Small patch to multicast code... X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:43:43 -0000 gnn@FreeBSD.org wrote: > Somehow the data that the device needs to do the proper checksum > offload is getting trashed here. Now, since it's clear we need a > writable packet structure so that we don't trash the original, I'm > wondering if the m_pullup() will be sufficient. > If it's serious enough to break UDP checksumming on the wire, perhaps we should just swallow the mbuf allocator heap churn and do the m_dup() for now, but slap in a big comment about why it's there. BMS