Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.193]) by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j3C1ue2K025790 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:56:40 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so3666516wra for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:56:35 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=jTfgUOXBfv2iTH5LRFl9ty+zHWVysRQGpkUo3vxYR3U06y6/N7w6rUU5EiNXMpnpmJwTdLOiUcKWLGdIfCHJ5KrFiU4X0DJrua7f6HdCfSx8VyL9IGuM5QtuSWAlhW0fHkyVp/FVMt/qD3I7f03FsqhqFnPMkIbe8//gAMk9JoM= Received: by 10.54.50.33 with SMTP id x33mr2616216wrx; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.72.15 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39e6f6c705041118561348e2d9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:56:35 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Reply-To: acme@conectiva.com.br To: linux lover Subject: Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <20050412012614.69495.qmail@web52209.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20050412012614.69495.qmail@web52209.mail.yahoo.com> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.83/819/Sun Apr 10 17:01:27 2005 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 1679 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: arnaldo.melo@gmail.com Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev Content-Length: 472 Lines: 12 On Apr 11, 2005 10:26 PM, linux lover wrote: > Hello, > Thanks for reply. Can you please tell me about > my second question? > 2)But Why header structures for ipcomp, eh, > esp(IPSEC) not included in skbuff.h? I thought I have answered this, the reason to have the layer pointers in skb be void is that skb is core/generic infrastructure, it should not have any kind of protocol specific structures/information in it. - Arnaldo