| 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@dub.inr.ac.ru> |
| Organization: | USAGI Project |
| References: | <20030724000705.4662df54.davem@redhat.com> <200307241402.SAA09143@dub.inr.ac.ru> |
| 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. --yoshfuji |
| Previous by Date: | Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1, kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1, kuznet |
| 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, kuznet |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |