From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13]: [IPV4/6]: Netfilter IPsec input hooks Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:46:22 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20051219.124622.101716348.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> References: <43A571B5.205@trash.net> <20051219.001504.32143116.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <43A5E9D7.8050705@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, kazunori@miyazawa.org, kozakai@linux-ipv6.org, davem@davemloft.net Return-path: To: kaber@trash.net In-Reply-To: <43A5E9D7.8050705@trash.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org In article <43A5E9D7.8050705@trash.net> (at Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:59:35 +0100), Patrick McHardy says: > YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote: : > > BTW, we're now using full of skb->cb > > (and we are even exceeding it w/ mobile-ipv6 extensions)... > > Not in mainline so far, so maybe we can fit your extensions > and my patches without the mobile extensions, that apparently > exceed the CB anyway, in there for now. Can I look at those > patches somewhere? BTW, other fields in the IP6CB seem to > store offsets in u16 fields, is this OK for nhoff too? I > thought with jumbo options I need to use a u32 field. Well, don't mind too much. I just wanted to note that we're about to exceed skb->cb. I will probably enlarge skb->cb if needed. And, yes, good point. I think nhoff should be u32 because it is critical. In theory, u32 is definitely needed for others as well... --yoshfuji