| To: | Jacob Avraham <jacoba@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: conflicting alignment requirements |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:17:08 +0200 |
| Cc: | Network Development List <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <NEBBIENHDJCCLCJMLEDBIEDECFAA.jacoba@xxxxxxxxx>; from Jacob Avraham on Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 12:57:37AM +0200 |
| References: | <NEBBIENHDJCCLCJMLEDBIEDECFAA.jacoba@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 12:57:37AM +0200, Jacob Avraham wrote: > I noticed that some ethernet drivers, like the tulip, > require that the receive buffers be 4 byte align > (I believe due to h/w constrains). > On the other hand, some upper layer code, like tc > (for non x86/68k), checks if the IP header is 4 byte align, > and if not, doesn't handle the packet. > So it looks like tc and tulip can not be used on other architectures. > > Has this been discussed before and if yes what was the outcome? > In the short term, would that be OK to remove this restriction > from tc? If some network stack code checks the alignment and reject unaligned packets it is a bug. Could you tell exactly which code does that? -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: static routes and dead gateway detection, Julian Anastasov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | airport reset on iBook2, Ethan Blanton |
| Previous by Thread: | conflicting alignment requirements, Jacob Avraham |
| Next by Thread: | RE: conflicting alignment requirements, Jacob Avraham |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |