On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:45:23 +0000
Al Viro [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:36:38AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

quoted

quoted

you will get the same behaviour on big- and little-endian boxen, even though
the intermediate integer values will be of course different.

skb->csum *must* be stored in the same order on l-e and b-e boxen; that
way you don't need to convert it or raw data when updating the sucker [*].

[*] it's slightly more complicated since skb->csum is 4-byte, not 2-byte
and the real invariant is "checksum of 4-octet array at &skb->csum must
not depend on host" (so e.g XX YY 00 00 and 00 00 XX YY are equivalent -
checksum doesn't change from reordering octet pairs; XX YY 00 00 and
00 00 YY XX are very definitely *NOT* equivalent; odd and even bytes
can't be exchanged).

Did you test this on real hardware?

Test _what_ on real hardware?  That kernel expects skb->csum fixed-endian?
That csum_add() and friends work?  Yes to both.

If you are asking whether I'd tested what skge does to csum in its rx
descriptors when asked to byteswap - as I've said, all skge-handled stuff
I have is on-board in little-endian boxen.  Thus asking for folks who
could test it on big-endian and see what does that sucker actually do...

I'll wait for 2.6.25 then. I am just concerned about how real hardware
interprets the byte swap PCI flag. I'll see if I can find some cost
competitive bigendian hardware.

-- 
Stephen Hemminger [off-list ref]