Re: Massive TCPv4 bad checksum

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:46:40 +0100 (BST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: MOLNAR Ingo: "Re: [patch] jiffies wraparound [Re: 2.1.125 Show stopper list: Draft]"
Previous message: Tony Cook: "Re: Does linux first allocate under 64MB?"
In reply to: Gregory Maxwell: "Re: 2.2 missing features"

> > 2.0 just never spat out a message when it got a bad checksum, so this is
> > probably why you never saw it before. If you're noticing that there's an
> > actual packet data problem that didn't exist before with 2.0, then you
> > might want to investigate. The message will be probably be removed by
> > 2.2.
> >
>
> I can tell my SLIP speed is slower than 2.0 and there are quite
> some corrupted packets come over SLIP link.

Are you running an SMP kernel on a uniprocessor machine, what disk IO
and what other major devices.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: MOLNAR Ingo: "Re: [patch] jiffies wraparound [Re: 2.1.125 Show stopper list: Draft]"
Previous message: Tony Cook: "Re: Does linux first allocate under 64MB?"
In reply to: Gregory Maxwell: "Re: 2.2 missing features"