[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1229414219.18038.241.camel@ecld0pohly>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:56:59 +0100
From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@...el.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"johnstul@...ibm.com" <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] net: infrastructure for hardware time
stamping
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 21:53 +0000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@...el.com> wrote:
> > @@ -305,6 +406,8 @@ struct sk_buff {
> > ipvs_property:1,
> > peeked:1,
> > nf_trace:1;
> > + /* not all of the bits in optional are used */
> > + __u8 optional;
> > __be16 protocol;
>
> You do reliase that this is going to grow the sk_buff by at least
> 4 bytes and not 1?
Yes. I should have been more explicit about that when talking about
"adding one byte". At least it's better than adding 8 bytes of
additional data, as in the previous patch.
I haven't checked it, but was told that sk_buff is already tightly
packed. It didn't look like there was a better place to put the byte
either.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists