Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, you should use 2 rather than NET_IP_ALIGN here. > The point of NET_IP_ALIGN is to allow architectures where unaligned > DMA is expensive to redefine NET_IP_ALIGN to 0. But in this case you > are not DMA'ing into the new buffer but using memcpy so you always > want to reserve 2 (16 - ETH_HLEN) to cause aligned access in IP receive.
Good point. The name of this macro is really misleading. Can we perhaps replace NET_IP_ALIGN with NET_IP_DMA_ALIGN and add a new macro NET_IP_SW_ALIGN and use that instead of 2. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
