Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230628020657.957880-1-goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
 <20230628091241.GAZJv5ie0xVGvnMKIM@fat_crate.local> <CAFUsyfKYQk87fxCDj9FpM9xzLwZVRrfUZgyUCF5G+HuC0N2pXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wj1fe4Pa0zLxUTiMjaxEXW84HBup+Hv=fe-U8PoFzrm5g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wj1fe4Pa0zLxUTiMjaxEXW84HBup+Hv=fe-U8PoFzrm5g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:34:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFUsyfJ-n53mXd1QZCtFfkCjux6Hy7iAG4-uALX0Uyofg=PTGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: x86/csum: Remove unnecessary odd handling
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, x86@kernel.org,
        edumazet@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 12:44=E2=80=AFPM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 08:32, Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> >
> > Linus, if you're planning a patch and want to just integrate the codes
> > here I'm happy drop this patch
>
> No, that patch looks good to me.
>
> In fact, I wasn't planning on integrating my patch at all. I literally
> did it as a "I would have done it this way instead" exercise.
>
> And while I am currently running with my patch in the kernel, I don't
> even really know if it works and does the right thing. Maybe my use
> doesn't even trigger csum_partial() at all. I did not do any testing
> that "yes, I get the same checksum as a result".
>

There is a reasonably robust kunit for csum_partial: lib/checksum_kunit.c
so if you happened to run the kunit testsuite with your patch, it's
probably correct.

> So
>
>  (a) removing the pointless one-byte alignment looks good to me.
>
>  (b) I'd actually hope that somebody who _cares_ about this path and
> has put some real work into it (as opposed to my "superficial
> dabbling") would look at my patch and either go "yeah, not worth it",
> or "looks good, I'll take it".
>
> and I'm including that final patch of mine here again in case there
> was any confusion with the earlier versions (there were at least two
> known-broken versions I posted).
>
> *If* somebody likes it, and verifies that the checksum result is
> correct, feel free to do anything with that patch, including adding my
> signed-off-by for it (or taking the credit all for yourself -
> Mwahahahahaahaa!)
>
>               Linus