From: rick.jones2@hp.com   
      
   Jorgen Grahn  wrote:   
      
   > No; we have beaten the subject half to death, and still that LKML   
   > thread did a much better job.  All arguments we have used were used   
   > there (even though they mostly talked about one specific case: a   
   > datagram with a bad checksum over UDP).   
      
   Isn't the issue with the bad UDP checksum a result of Linux's decision   
   to defer the checksum to the copy to user space?  That is to say, they   
   tried to do something clever that didn't quite fit with the implied   
   (via say age-old BSD) semantics of a socket?   
      
   rick jones   
   --   
   web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...   
   these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)   
   feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)