[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <4990F1B5.2070002@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:17:09 -0800
From: Santwona.Behera@....COM
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, gkernel-commit@...ts.sourceforge.net,
jeff@...zik.org, Matheos.Worku@....COM, Mehdi.Bonyadi@....COM
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [ethtool] Add support for RX packet classification in
a network device
On 02/ 9/09 06:03 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Santwona.Behera@....COM
> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:12:21 -0800
>
>> +struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec {
>> + __u32 ip4src;
>> + __u32 ip4dst;
>> + __u16 psrc;
>> + __u16 pdst;
>> + __u8 tos;
>> +};
>
> The IP addresses and ports in these new interfaces, are
> they to be specified in network or cpu byte order?
The interfaces assumes that they are to be specified in network order. I
will add a comment to mention that.
Looking back at my ethtool(8) patch, I have a bug in the code where I do
not do this translation for the ports and spi (I got it right for the IP
addresses). I will fix this and repost all the patches.
Thanks for raising this.
--santwona
>
> That's usually the first thing a person will wonder when
> trying to use to implement support for these interfaces.
>
> My guess is that the specification is cpu endianness,
> however note that this flies in the face with how this
> is handled in pretty much every other networking interface
> in the kernel. The standard is to use network endianness
> when passing ports and IP addressing information into the
> kernel.
>
> I wouldn't reject this patch series just for this reason,
> in fact I'm ready to apply this stuff, but just thought I'd
> mention it just in case you hadn't considered the issue
> yourself.
--
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