Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:08:19 -0700 From: Thomas Skibo <ThomasSkibo@sbcglobal.net> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ARM network trouble after recent mbuf changes Message-ID: <521CDD03.1010108@sbcglobal.net> In-Reply-To: <521C87FF.8010100@freebsd.org> References: <1377550636.1111.156.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <521BC472.7040804@freebsd.org> <521BD531.4090104@sbcglobal.net> <521C4CD9.4050308@freebsd.org> <0E0536B2-2B7F-4EED-9EFD-4B9E2C2D729A@freebsd.org> <521C87FF.8010100@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/27/13 4:05 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > Thanks. I've changed the test accordingly. > > While doing the CTASSERTs to prevent such an incident in the future I > stumbled > across a bit of evil name space pollution in mbuf.h. It is impossible > to take > sizeof(struct m_ext) because "m_ext" is redefined to point into struct > mbuf. > > In addition to the alignment fix I've solved the namespace issues with > m_ext > and the stupidly named struct pkthdr as well and properly prefixed > them. The > fallout from LINT was zero (as it should be). > > http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/m_hdr-alignment-20130827.diff > > Please test. > I'm running this patch on Zedboard and it is doing well. Thanks! -- -------- Thomas Skibo ThomasSkibo@sbcglobal.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?521CDD03.1010108>