[PATCH 1/2] staging: slicoss: rewrite eeprom checksum code
David Matlack
matlackdavid at gmail.com
Sun May 18 22:43:10 UTC 2014
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 9:51 PM, David Matlack <matlackdavid at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Joe Perches <joe at perches.com> wrote:
>> The if seems unnecessary.
>>
>> Perhaps declare a u16 return var or use
>>
>> return lower_16 + upper_16;
>
> I agree it's fishy... but using overflow doesn't produce the same result:
>
> (u16) 65536 == 0
> 65536 - 65535 == 1
>
> Now which is the correct result, I have no idea.
I think the checksum algorithm being used here is RFC 1071 [1]. Which means the
if is correct and just accounting for double overflow.
> The eeprom on this device is
> small (0x80 bytes max, not enough to trigger overflow) and I have no
Sorry, I was wrong about this. I was thinking in terms of summing bytes,
but the checksum is summing words. Overflow _does_ get triggered.
I think I'll go over this patch again while looking at the RFC to make sure
everything is ok. Thanks!
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1071
More information about the devel
mailing list