On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 21:53 +0000, Herbert Xu wrote: > Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> 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-api" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
