| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sk_buff question |
| From: | chuckw@xxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Mon, 27 Aug 2001 07:01:52 -0400 |
| In-reply-to: | <20010824005248.A1022@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 12:52:48AM -0300 |
| Mail-followup-to: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20010823114421.A4454@xxxxxxxx> <20010824005248.A1022@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
I see ... Thanks much. Chuck On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 12:52:48AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:44:21AM -0400, chuckw@xxxxxxxx escreveu: > > Hello again, > > I was wondering if anyone knew why in sk_buff the next and prev > > pointers _need_ to be first? > > look at sk_buff_head definition and at functions using sk_buff_head, the > casts, etc, and you'll know 8) > > - Arnaldo |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | incorporating bonding code changes into the kernel, Janice Girouard |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [patch] 2.4.9 new socket option TCP_DELACK (RFC), Nivedita Singhvi |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: sk_buff question, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
| Next by Thread: | incorporating bonding code changes into the kernel, Janice Girouard |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |