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 09:17:59PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> The relevant mbuf bit, as I remember it, simply allows the driver to
> inform the stack that the FCS is still there in the frame, and hasn't
> been removed, either by the hardware, or by the driver.   That I believe
> is largely what Joerg suggested it means.

OK, sanity restored, thanks!

But that means somewhere in the stack we have a bug biting Chris'
use of ethertalk where some code not properly deals with M_HASFCS.

Or something like that. Chris, what problem exactly have you seen that
led to this commit?

This also means the commit should be backed out, or am I misunderstanding
again?

Martin