From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: Fix compiler warning. Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:31:52 +0100 Message-ID: <4B214CA8.7010902@gmail.com> References: <4B207840.7080603@gmail.com> <97949e3e0912100950u51f627c9r515d9b69a02430f4@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Laurent Chavey , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Patrick McHardy , Netfilter Developers To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from gw1.cosmosbay.com ([212.99.114.194]:46240 "EHLO gw1.cosmosbay.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752112AbZLJTb5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:31:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 10/12/2009 19:53, Jan Engelhardt a =E9crit : >=20 > On Donnerstag 2009-12-10 18:50, Laurent Chavey wrote: >> >> good point. I agree with the need for the exception, I would just >> like it to be more explicit in the code itself (like a turn off >> check around that particular statement) so we do not have to scrub >> thru the compiler output to filter out good / bad warning. question: >> why do we not force the timestamp in the skb before going thru the >> chain ? >=20 > Because it is probably too expensive to do, unless you employ > things like xt_time? Right. On some platforms, timestamps are quite expensive (say, a fracti= on=20 of one micro second to get one of them), we try to avoid them as much a= s possible. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-dev= el" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html