lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/17] Blackfin: convert to generic checksum code
Date
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and this is an internal tester ... if we're going to let arches
> override it, then its function signature are pretty much set in stone.
> i agree we should test every checksum function, but i think only
> testing do_csum indirectly would be detrimental to the people who
> would want to use this -- arch maintainers looking to implement
> do_csum() themselves. otherwise they need to step through the
> surrounding functions a bit to find the exact values given to
> do_csum() and the exact value expected back such that the calling
> function still works. and every arch guy is going to do this same
> thing.

It depends on how we want to use it. If it's only for testing architecture
that have moved to the generic checksum code, that's fine. I was
thinking we could also use it for architectures that want to keep
their own code, but we don't have to.

> i'm a bit of a nub here wrt checksuming. the test module i came up
> with by simply flooding my board and copying & pasting mismatched
> buffers ;). are you saying the following should be OK ?
> - if (tret != do_csum_data[i].ret) {
> + if (tret != le16_to_cpu(do_csum_data[i].ret)) {

yes, that should work.

> unless there is a macro i could use that'd do the expansion at CPP
> time so i'd write the test data as:
> static struct do_csum_data __initdata do_csum_data[] = {
> DO_CSUM_DATA(1, le16_to_cpu(0x0020)),
> ...

Ah, right that won't. I tested only on x86 (little-endian), so
le16_to_cpu() is an identity function that can be evaluated for
constants, but on big-endian that would break.

Arnd <><


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-24 00:11    [W:0.054 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site