[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801032219.04223.paul.moore@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:19:03 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jarkao2@...il.com,
hadi@...erus.ca, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] NET: Clone the sk_buff->iif field properly
On Thursday 03 January 2008 6:40:07 pm Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 18:13 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > static struct sk_buff *__skb_clone(struct sk_buff *n, struct sk_buff
> > *skb)
> > {
> > #define C(x) n->x = skb->x
> >
> > n->next = n->prev = NULL;
> > n->sk = NULL;
> > __copy_skb_header(n, skb);
> >
> > C(len);
> > C(data_len);
> > C(mac_len);
> > n->hdr_len = skb->nohdr ? skb_headroom(skb) : skb->hdr_len;
> > n->cloned = 1;
> > n->nohdr = 0;
> > n->destructor = NULL;
> > C(iif);
> > C(tail);
> > C(end);
> > C(head);
> > C(data);
> > C(truesize);
> > atomic_set(&n->users, 1);
> >
> > atomic_inc(&(skb_shinfo(skb)->dataref));
> > skb->cloned = 1;
> >
> > return n;
> > #undef C
>
> Perhaps move the skb->cloned = 1 to just after n->cloned = 1
> or
> skb->cloned = n->cloned = 1;
> or maybe
> skb->cloned = 1;
> C(cloned);
I thought about that, but I kinda like how the parent-skb-only changes are
grouped together at the end. I think the distinction helps readability, but
then again we've already seen how subjective readability can be :)
--
paul moore
linux security @ hp
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists