> No, I mean it just shouldn't use __predict_false for the branch. That's > a stupid assumption to make. Does that make it clearer?
I understand, thanks. Should I modify not to use __predict_false in my patch at once? I think it isn't related to my patch directly and better to do with the fix of the other issue that VLAN_SUPPORTED does not work. > In VLAN_TAG_VALUE it doesn't matter as it stores the entry in the field > reusing the remaining bits. In this case, the other bits of the vlan > field where used for other purpses. I think it doesn't matter, too. But, I want to change it to 0x0FFF instead of 0xFFFF, because 4095 is used for the mask in VLAN_TAG_VALUE before my patch. Regards, s-yamaguchi@IIJ
