From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] NET: Clone the sk_buff->iif field properly Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:13:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20080103211312.GA7258@ami.dom.local> References: <20080103095829.GB2000@ff.dom.local> <1199359402.4710.17.camel@localhost> <200801031115.34886.paul.moore@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Moore Return-path: Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.184]:2530 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752155AbYACVKT (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:10:19 -0500 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g13so441278nfb.21 for ; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:10:18 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801031115.34886.paul.moore@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:15:34AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: ... > While I'm at it, is there some reason for this #define in __skb_clone()? > > #define C(x) n->x = skb->x > > ... it seems kinda silly to me and I tend to think the code would be > better without it. IMHO, if there are a lot of this, it's definitely more readable: easier to check which values are simply copied and which need something more. But, as usual, it's probably a question of taste, and of course without it it would definitely look classier... Cheers, Jarek P. PS: I hope you didn't suggest earlier my (better?) knowlege of git; otherwise don't bother: with your git push you are far ahead of my gitweb 'degree'.