Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
My personal preference is to set a flag in the skb struct indicating
whether
or not the crc is appended (and skb_put). Then, bridging code can
ignore it if needed,
and sniffers and such can get the CRC in user-land. To remain
backwards compat,
at least the skb-put of
On 5/3/06, Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In commit: a292ca6efbc1f259ddfb9c902367f2588e0e8b0f
>> to e1000_main.c, there is the change below.
>>
>> I am curious why the skb_put no longer subtracts ETHERNET_FCS_
On 5/3/06, Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, as of 2.6.16.13, is the hardware stripping (SERC) enabled? Could
you also let me know where this bit is defined in case I want to twiddle
it myself (a quick grep for SERC in 2.6.16.13 yields nothing.)
You missed a C, it's SECRC (Strip Ethern
Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
On 5/2/06, Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In commit: a292ca6efbc1f259ddfb9c902367f2588e0e8b0f
to e1000_main.c, there is the change below.
I am curious why the skb_put no longer subtracts ETHERNET_FCS_SIZE
from the length. Is the idea that we will now always inc
On 5/2/06, Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In commit: a292ca6efbc1f259ddfb9c902367f2588e0e8b0f
to e1000_main.c, there is the change below.
I am curious why the skb_put no longer subtracts ETHERNET_FCS_SIZE
from the length. Is the idea that we will now always include the
FCS at the end of
In commit: a292ca6efbc1f259ddfb9c902367f2588e0e8b0f
to e1000_main.c, there is the change below.
I am curious why the skb_put no longer subtracts ETHERNET_FCS_SIZE
from the length. Is the idea that we will now always include the
FCS at the end of the skb?
It also seems that the skb_put for the
