netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments)

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments)
From: Jan Echternach <echter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:25:12 +0200
Cc: netfilter@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20000815181812.A5358@xxxxxxxxxxx>; from ak@xxxxxx on Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 06:18:12PM +0200
Mail-followup-to: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>, netfilter@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20000811162634.A3814@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10008120119370.13569-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20000815175225.B26543@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20000815181812.A5358@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Jan Echternach <jan.echternach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 06:18:12PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> It is strongly recommended to use the NLMSG_* macros to avoid alignment 
> problems
> on other architectures than i386.

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 allocate
the buffer. You could also use a simple variable of structure type with
automatic or static storage duration if the netlink datagram contains
such a structure.

BTW, are there any other reasons for using NLMSG_* apart from
alignement issues?

-- 
Jan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>