On 06/03/2013 07:34 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h >> > +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h >> > @@ -40,6 +40,8 @@ >> > #define CHECKSUM_COMPLETE 2 >> > #define CHECKSUM_PARTIAL 3 >> > >> > +#define SKB_HEADER_UNSET_16 ((unsigned short) ~0U) > Isn't better to use the same type as used in the structure description? >
It sounds reasonable, I will wait 1 days, if no additional suggestions or completions, I will send patch v3. >> > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c >> > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c >> > @@ -200,7 +200,8 @@ struct sk_buff *__alloc_skb_head(gfp_t gfp_mask, int >> > node) >> > atomic_set(&skb->users, 1); >> > >> > #ifdef NET_SKBUFF_DATA_USES_OFFSET >> > - skb->mac_header = (__u16) ~0U; >> > + skb->mac_header = SKB_HEADER_UNSET_16; >> > + skb->transport_header = SKB_HEADER_UNSET_16; > Is it correct to assign transport_header here as well? At least, it is correct: they are in the same structure, and almost a neighbor with each other. Hmm... I guess that may be useless currently which will waste one instruction. But I still suggest to add it, it can avoid the new mistakes in the future. Welcome another members to provide their suggestions for it. Thanks. -- Chen Gang Asianux Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
