[Top] [All Lists]

Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1

To: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:26:21 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxx, krkumar@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200307241402.SAA09143@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: USAGI Project
References: <20030724000705.4662df54.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <200307241402.SAA09143@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
In article <200307241402.SAA09143@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:02:35 
+0400 (MSD)), kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says:

> Maybe, struct is better, but I am inclined to think in this case it is wrong.
> It is going to be extended, so newly compiled applications will see
> truncated structs from older kernels and will have to do ugly job
> verifying validity of fields using some offsetof. In the case of array
> it is natural at least.

I'm not so sure about the "array," but anyway,
I don't think it is so ugly to use struct / offsetof.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>