Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] net: infrastructure for hardware time stamping

On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 21:53 +0000, Herbert Xu wrote:

Patrick Ohly [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

@@ -305,6 +406,8 @@ struct sk_buff {
                               ipvs_property:1,
                               peeked:1,
                               nf_trace:1;
+       /* not all of the bits in optional are used */
+       __u8                    optional;
       __be16                  protocol;

You do reliase that this is going to grow the sk_buff by at least
4 bytes and not 1?

Yes. I should have been more explicit about that when talking about
"adding one byte". At least it's better than adding 8 bytes of
additional data, as in the previous patch.

I haven't checked it, but was told that sk_buff is already tightly
packed. It didn't look like there was a better place to put the byte
either.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html