Re: Dealing with M_HASFCS for protocols that do not do ethernet crc

[Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 07:21:44AM +0900, Chris wrote:
> Existing examples of mucking about with the packet data were:
> 
> * in ixp425_if_npe.c (in npe_rxdone(), line 1050, which indicated that it was
>   okay to modify the packets in-driver {and is done unilaterally, which further
>   indicates that this driver also doesn't work with AppleTalk}),

Ah, that confused me the most.

> > So I wonder if we should redefine the meaning of M_HASFCS from "FCS included
> > at the end of frame" to "Frame may have FCS included at the end if protocol
> > uses a FCS", and then have if_ethersubr.c deal with it generically.
> 
> I was thinking that was the right thing to do strategically, but it'd be a large
> change with the near-certainty of breaking things that I am not in a position to
> test, so I went for the simpler solution.

Yes, and I'm not asking for a backout, but would like to see some kind
of general consensus where we would like to move to (even if we don't
instantly do anything). Like Mouse I never thought FCS could be
kind of "optional".

Martin