| To: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1 |
| From: | Krishna Kumar <krkumar@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:14:36 -0700 |
| Cc: | yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200307241443.SAA09525@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | IBM |
| References: | <200307241443.SAA09525@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 |
So people are ok with using struct ? Since it can be typecast as an array :-) thanks, - KK kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Hello!I'm not so sure about the "array," but anyway, I don't think it is so ugly to use struct / offsetof.Just write a sample of code, printing all fields of struct and equivalent array, and you will see. Well, I just know, that when iproute will do this, it will cast the struct to array in any case. It is dirty, but sane at least. :-) Alexey |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Memory usage for ip_conntrack, Harald Welte |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1, kuznet |
| Next by Thread: | Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |