| To: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx (David S. Miller) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1 |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:02:35 +0400 (MSD) |
| Cc: | krkumar@xxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030724000705.4662df54.davem@redhat.com> from "David S. Miller" at éÀÌ 24, 2003 12:07:05 |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > Another idea is to define the user structure: Actually, I saw it just as array indexed by values from sysctl.h. 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. Alexey PS I know right way is not to change the struct. :-) It is another reason why I am still not sure that encoding sysctl values as separate subattributes is bad idea. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Bug? ARP with wrong src IP address, Julian Anastasov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: O/M flags against 2.6.0-test1, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |