Quoting Andrew Gallatin <gallatin_at_cs.duke.edu> (Thu, 25 May 2006 12:20:17 -0400 (EDT)): > If we're going to do anything, I'd prefer to see us skip > the checksum on everything sent across lo0 and stick with > the slower, yet known to work, existing checksum code for > slow interfaces. The current code is known to work with the current gcc we use. It is known to *not* work with the Intel C compiler. It may or may not work with an upcomming gcc version. The current code is a maze of assembly and macros, the new one is straight forward C and a little bit of assembly. And the new one is also known to work in DragonFlyBSD. Do you expect *this* code to act differently between FreeBSD and DragonFlyBSD? What's the technical backing of your preference to stick with the current code? How does the technical backing of your preference compare to the technical arguments I presented in this thread regarding the priority of the arguments? Bye, Alexander. -- Selling GoodYear Eagle F1 235/40ZR18, 2x 4mm + 2x 5mm, ~150 EUR you have to pick it up between Germany/Saarland and Luxembourg/Capellen http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild _at_ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137Received on Fri May 26 2006 - 09:30:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:56 UTC