| To: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: socklen_t instead of size_t in struct cmsghdr |
| From: | Jakub Jelinek <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:26:15 -0400 |
| Cc: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200010031823.WAA06019@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 10:23:26PM +0400 |
| References: | <20001002220155.P9588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200010031823.WAA06019@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Jakub Jelinek <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 10:23:26PM +0400, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > Yes, but the different alignment is because of the 64bit type in struct
> > cmsghdr.
>
> No! That's problem. Alignment of cmsgs is forced to unsigned long.
> Look at macros CMSG_*
>
> cmsgs may contain qword aligned objects (which also require translation,
> by the way). It is problem.
>
> F.e. I forced 32bit alignment in rtnetlink to help you and Dave.
> But thing, which is allowed there, can be not allowed with cmsgs.
> At least bad alignment smells like you are going to emulate
> 64bit interface on top of 32bit one. 8)
Let's wait for DaveM then, worst case I'll hack some %sp munging so that the
cmsg fixup is not done in situ.
Jakub
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: socklen_t instead of size_t in struct cmsghdr, kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: socklen_t instead of size_t in struct cmsghdr, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: socklen_t instead of size_t in struct cmsghdr, kuznet |
| Next by Thread: | Re: socklen_t instead of size_t in struct cmsghdr, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |