Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*NLMSG_\*\s+macros\s+$was\:\s+Re\:\s+ULOG\s+comments$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*NLMSG_\*\s+macros\s+$was\:\s+Re\:\s+ULOG\s+comments$\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Jan Echternach <echter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:52:25 +0200; [Cc'ed to netdev] But why? IMHO, NLMSG_* just add an uneccessary wrapper for messages that can't ever have multiple parts. I don't see it as a clean interface in this case. And are netlink(3) and net; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00046.html (9,386 bytes)
2. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:18:12 +0200; It is strongly recommended to use the NLMSG_* macros to avoid alignment problems on other architectures than i386. They are accurate as far as I know (but missing some stuff) Yes. -Andi -- This is li; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00047.html (9,467 bytes)
3. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Jan Echternach <echter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:25:12 +0200; But there are absolutely no alignement problems with single-part messages. Actually, there are even fewer alignment problems without NLMSG_* in this case because you don't need to use malloc() to all; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00048.html (9,604 bytes)
4. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:46:34 +0200; There is between the header and the payload. -Andi; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00049.html (9,324 bytes)
5. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Jan Echternach <echter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:22:31 +0200; I'm sorry that I didn't represent the issue clearly. I understand that user space code should also use NLMSG_* if the kernel uses it. Ipchains in Linux-2.2 uses a simple structure without padding on; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00053.html (10,598 bytes)
6. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:26:50 +0200; nlmsghdr has other uses than just handling multipart messages. For examples it gives you a sequence number so that you can try to detect lost packets and a way to request acks. netlink sockets requir; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00054.html (10,802 bytes)
7. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Jan Echternach <echter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:57:38 +0200; NETLINK_NFLOG packets originate in the kernel. Packet loss is signaled by ENOBUFS, and resending of packets is impossible unless the kernel is willing to eat huge amounts of memory before finally sto; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00055.html (10,502 bytes)
8. NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Jan Echternach <echter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:52:25 +0200; [Cc'ed to netdev] But why? IMHO, NLMSG_* just add an uneccessary wrapper for messages that can't ever have multiple parts. I don't see it as a clean interface in this case. And are netlink(3) and net; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00175.html (9,639 bytes)
9. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:18:12 +0200; It is strongly recommended to use the NLMSG_* macros to avoid alignment problems on other architectures than i386. They are accurate as far as I know (but missing some stuff) Yes. -Andi -- This is li; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00176.html (9,700 bytes)
10. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Jan Echternach <echter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:25:12 +0200; But there are absolutely no alignement problems with single-part messages. Actually, there are even fewer alignment problems without NLMSG_* in this case because you don't need to use malloc() to all; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00177.html (9,860 bytes)
11. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:46:34 +0200; There is between the header and the payload. -Andi; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00178.html (9,572 bytes)
12. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Jan Echternach <echter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:22:31 +0200; I'm sorry that I didn't represent the issue clearly. I understand that user space code should also use NLMSG_* if the kernel uses it. Ipchains in Linux-2.2 uses a simple structure without padding on; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00182.html (10,911 bytes)
13. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:26:50 +0200; nlmsghdr has other uses than just handling multipart messages. For examples it gives you a sequence number so that you can try to detect lost packets and a way to request acks. netlink sockets requir; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00183.html (11,107 bytes)
14. Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments) (score: 1): Author: Jan Echternach <echter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:57:38 +0200; NETLINK_NFLOG packets originate in the kernel. Packet loss is signaled by ENOBUFS, and resending of packets is impossible unless the kernel is willing to eat huge amounts of memory before finally sto; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00184.html (10,872 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]