| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments), Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments), Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments), Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: NLMSG_* macros (was: Re: ULOG comments), Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |