lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Patches: patch #7905, Add RFC3542-style checksum...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
patch #7905: Add RFC3542-style checksum compuation on raw, IPv6 sockets.
Submitter: | Grant Erickson <marathon96> | ||
Submitted: | Thu 20 Dec 2012 04:35:48 PM UTC | ||
Category: | IPv6 | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | Done | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | goldsimon | Open/Closed: | Closed |
Planned Release: | None |
Fri 21 Feb 2014 07:43:09 AM UTC, comment #4: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 21 Feb 2014 06:55:54 AM UTC, comment #3: I haven't checked, just had a quick look over the code, and I didn't see that. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 21 Feb 2014 03:20:33 AM UTC, comment #2: I'm not convinced that this patch is correct -- I think that the lines
|
Philip Gladstone <pjsg> |
Thu 20 Feb 2014 07:10:21 PM UTC, comment #1: Done, thanks for the patch. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 20 Dec 2012 04:35:48 PM UTC, original submission:
From: Grant Erickson <marathon96@gmail.com>
|
Grant Erickson <marathon96> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 9 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2014-02-21 | goldsimon | Status | In Progress | Done | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2014-02-21 | goldsimon | Status | Done | In Progress | |
Open/Closed | Closed | Open | |||
2014-02-20 | goldsimon | Status | None | Done | |
Assigned to | None | goldsimon | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2013-01-15 | goldsimon | Category | None | IPv6 | |
2012-12-20 | marathon96 | Attached File | - | Added rfc3542-checksum-0002.0.patch, #27131 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-f8d8.
Corresponding source code
Looking at it, it seems that the patch (using 'q') should work when using a PBUF_RAM pbuf with enough space for all headers. However, it can't work when this is not the case, so I guess you're right. At this point, the extra 'q' should have a length of zero and only provide space for the next headers, so using 'p' should be the right thing.
Done, thanks.