| To: | yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] IPSec: Use of "sizeof" for header sizes, part II |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 01 Apr 2003 20:02:25 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | toml@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030402.130232.78951283.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030402.122518.62753078.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030401.193429.64279267.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030402.130232.78951283.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 13:02:32 +0900 (JST)
In article <20030401.193429.64279267.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Tue, 01 Apr 2003
19:34:29 -0800 (PST)), "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> How about just removing 8 bytes from struct {ip,ipv6}_esp_hdr
> like this?
>
> Sure, but does anyone need the 8 bytes there? I thought so, which is
> why I didn't think about your suggestion :-)
Let's define
#define IPV6_ESP_MINDATA 8
and put "(sizeof(struct ip6_esp_hdr) + IPV6_ESP_MINDATA)" in such places.
I just checked, nobody cares about the 8 bytes in enc_data.
Therefore, I think you're idea of enc_data[0] is the best.
Someone please double check my claims and submit a patch. :-)
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPSec: Use of "sizeof" for header sizes, part II, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Intel 1000 MT slow to restart, Feldman, Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] IPSec: Use of "sizeof" for header sizes, part II, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] IPSec: Use of "sizeof" for header sizes, part II, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |