Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net] skbuff.h: Improve the checksum related comments | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Date | Sun, 5 Apr 2020 09:41:24 -0700 |
| |
On 4/5/20 9:33 AM, Dexuan Cui wrote: >> From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> >> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2020 3:36 AM >> To: Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> >> >> On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 12:17:43AM -0700, Dexuan Cui wrote: >>> * CHECKSUM_COMPLETE: >>> * >>> - * This is the most generic way. The device supplied checksum of the >> _whole_ >>> - * packet as seen by netif_rx() and fills out in skb->csum. Meaning, the >>> + * This is the most generic way. The device supplies checksum of the >> _whole_ >>> + * packet as seen by netif_rx() and fills out in skb->csum. This means the >> >> I think both 'supplies' and 'supplied' are correct in this sentence. The >> nuances are slightly different, but the meaning is the same in this instance. > > I see. So let me rever back to "supplied". > >> You missed a mistake in the second line though, it should be either 'fills >> out' or 'fills in'. I think we tend to prefer 'fills in'. > > Thanks! Will use "fills in" in v2. > >>> * CHECKSUM_COMPLETE: >>> * Not used in checksum output. If a driver observes a packet with this >> value >>> - * set in skbuff, if should treat as CHECKSUM_NONE being set. >>> + * set in skbuff, the driver should treat it as CHECKSUM_NONE being set. >> >> I would go with "it should treat the packet as if CHECKSUM_NONE were set." > > Thanks. Will use this version. > >>> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ >>> * is implied by the SKB_GSO_* flags in gso_type. Most obviously, if the >>> * gso_type is SKB_GSO_TCPV4 or SKB_GSO_TCPV6, TCP checksum offload >> as >>> * part of the GSO operation is implied. If a checksum is being offloaded >>> - * with GSO then ip_summed is CHECKSUM_PARTIAL, csum_start and >> csum_offset >>> + * with GSO then ip_summed is CHECKSUM_PARTIAL AND csum_start and >> csum_offset >>> * are set to refer to the outermost checksum being offload (two offloaded >>> * checksums are possible with UDP encapsulation). >> >> Why the capitalisation of 'AND'? > > The current text without the patch is: > * part of the GSO operation is implied. If a checksum is being offloaded > * with GSO then ip_summed is CHECKSUM_PARTIAL, csum_start and csum_offset > * are set to refer to the outermost checksum being offload (two offloaded > * checksums are possible with UDP encapsulation). > > The comma after the "CHECKSUM_PARTIAL" seems suspicious to me. I feel we > should add an "and" after the comma, or replace the comma with "and", but > either way we'll have "... and csum_start and csum_offset...", which seems a little > unnatural to me since we have 2 'and's here... So I tried to make it a little natural > by replacing the first 'and' with 'AND', which obviously causes confusion to you.
maybe "both csum_start and csum_offset are set to refer to".
> Please suggest the best change here. Thanks! > >> Thanks for the improvements, >> >> Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org> > > Thanks for the comments! I'll wait for your suggestion on the 'AND' and post > a v2.
-- ~Randy
| |