Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Why\s+skbuff\.h\s+different\s+for\s+2\.4\s+and\s+2\.6\s+kernels\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Why\s+skbuff\.h\s+different\s+for\s+2\.4\s+and\s+2\.6\s+kernels\?\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? (score: 1): Author: linux lover <linux_lover2004@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:37:52 -0700 (PDT); 1) In 2.4 kernel series skbuff.h has following unions for each TCP/IP layer. /*Transport Layer*/ union { struct tcphdr *th; struct udphdr *uh; struct icmphdr *icmph; struct igmphdr *igmph; struct ip; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00484.html (9,583 bytes)
2. Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:01:04 -0300; Work in progress, the ultimate goal is to get rid of all of these unions and have just: void *transport_header; void *network_header; void *link_header; So just set mac.raw directly and cast it to th; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00485.html (9,133 bytes)
3. Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? (score: 1): Author: linux lover <linux_lover2004@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:26:13 -0700 (PDT); 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? regards, linux_lover. -- Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00489.html (9,398 bytes)
4. Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:56:35 -0300; 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/informatio; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00490.html (8,911 bytes)
5. Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? (score: 1): Author: linux lover <linux_lover2004@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:13:57 -0700 (PDT); -- Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> Hello, Sorry if my questions are stupid but again have one question when skbuff.h is implemeted as void *transport_header; void *network_header; v; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00491.html (9,478 bytes)
6. Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? (score: 1): Author: linux lover <linux_lover2004@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:37:52 -0700 (PDT); hello, 1) In 2.4 kernel series skbuff.h has following unions for each TCP/IP layer. /*Transport Layer*/ union { struct tcphdr *th; struct udphdr *uh; struct icmphdr *icmph; struct igmphdr *igmph; str; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01620.html (9,598 bytes)
7. Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:01:04 -0300; Work in progress, the ultimate goal is to get rid of all of these unions and have just: void *transport_header; void *network_header; void *link_header; So just set mac.raw directly and cast it to th; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01621.html (9,201 bytes)
8. Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? (score: 1): Author: linux lover <linux_lover2004@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:26:13 -0700 (PDT); 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? regards, linux_lover. -- Arnaldo Carvalho de; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01625.html (9,413 bytes)
9. Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:56:35 -0300; 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/informatio; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01626.html (8,979 bytes)
10. Re: Why skbuff.h different for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? (score: 1): Author: linux lover <linux_lover2004@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:13:57 -0700 (PDT); -- Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hello, Sorry if my questions are stupid but again have one question when skbuff.h is implemeted as void *transport_header; void *network_he; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01627.html (9,493 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]