| To: | linux lover <linux_lover2004@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? |
| From: | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:56:35 -0300 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=jTfgUOXBfv2iTH5LRFl9ty+zHWVysRQGpkUo3vxYR3U06y6/N7w6rUU5EiNXMpnpmJwTdLOiUcKWLGdIfCHJ5KrFiU4X0DJrua7f6HdCfSx8VyL9IGuM5QtuSWAlhW0fHkyVp/FVMt/qD3I7f03FsqhqFnPMkIbe8//gAMk9JoM= |
| In-reply-to: | <20050412012614.69495.qmail@web52209.mail.yahoo.com> |
| References: | <20050412012614.69495.qmail@web52209.mail.yahoo.com> |
| Reply-to: | acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Apr 11, 2005 10:26 PM, linux lover <linux_lover2004@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > Thanks for reply. Can you please tell me about > my second question? > 2)But Why header structures for ipcomp, eh, > esp(IPSEC) not included in skbuff.h? I thought I have answered this, the reason to have the layer pointers in skb be void is that skb is core/generic infrastructure, it should not have any kind of protocol specific structures/information in it. - Arnaldo |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels?, linux lover |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels?, linux lover |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels?, linux lover |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels?, linux lover |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |