Linux-Development-Sys Digest #606, Volume #6 Fri, 9 Apr 99 20:14:50 EDT
Contents:
Re: BASIC compiler for Linux? (Gordon Scott)
Stupid shell question: (Tim Triemstra)
profiling a dynamic library (Jean-Christophe Ulysse)
Re: Difficulty with C++ clock() function on Linux ("Robert C. Paulsen, Jr.")
Re: Arrgghh! How MUCH does it cost to set up Apache? (Don Baccus)
Re: Arrgghh! How MUCH does it cost to set up Apache? (Don Baccus)
Re: persistent heap design advice please ("Keith Morgan")
Re: kernel compilation error (David T. Blake)
Re: SMP Linux, Any Catches? ("Clint Byrum")
The Auto Sleep of Linux?? (Edmond Song)
Re: (Q) Using the pgp signature on the kernel sources (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Online Kernel debugger (Arun Sharma)
Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...) (Dan Mercer)
Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...) (Josh Stern)
skbuff problems.... (Nitin Malik)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Scott)
Subject: Re: BASIC compiler for Linux?
Date: 9 Apr 1999 15:37:26 GMT
Reply-To: Gordon Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AC ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Hi,
: Are there any BASIC compilers out there for Linux? All hints are
: appriated!
: /Anders
You may find some basic-to-something converters around. I'm sure I
remember a `bastoc' and there's a VisualBasic to C/GTK converter (V0.02 !)
at www.linuxapp.com
G
--
Gordon Scott Opinions expressed are my own.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (official) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (backdoor)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) http://www.apis.demon.co.uk
Linux ............... Because I like to _get_ there today.
------------------------------
From: Tim Triemstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Stupid shell question:
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 14:12:53 -0400
Ok, I feel like an idiot for asking but my shell experience is still
somewhat limited and I haven't had much time in the shell recently, so I
thought I'd ask:
How do I phrase a command such that the command is actually spawned into
another shell, creating an entirely new window in an XWindows session?
For some reason it seemed like it was simple like ending with a '&' but
there must be more to it. I'm using the BASH shell.
Also, along these same lines, I use the Cygnus GNU compatibility toolkit
under my Windows toolkit. Using the BASH that came with it, is this
something that is even possible? I've written a little batch file that
launches cmd -c under NT and will run "start" to pass it the parameters
so as to have this effect. It just seems like there would be a better
way to do this the same as under Unix. I will be putting Linux back on
my home box soon and I wanted to remember how to do this since I tend to
use shells, makes and VI as my development environment.
Thanks!
--
Tim Triemstra ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Atlanta, GA USA
Home page: http://detlanta.com
------------------------------
From: Jean-Christophe Ulysse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.app
Subject: profiling a dynamic library
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 19:37:30 +0200
Hi,
I profile my programs (prof or gprof )
And before now i have no problem.
Now,
I've wrote a dynamic library ( .so ) that I link at the complilation
step to my main
program.
gcc myprog -o a.out -lmylib
BUT : gprof see symbols only in the main program ( a.out )
and give no statistics about the functions of the library.
Do anybody know the option ( of gprof or gcc ) for watch the symbols
of a liked library
Thanks .
--
Jean-Christophe Ulysse | Ceux qui ne savent rien en savent toujours
DEA Informatique Fondamentale | autant que ceux qui n'en savent pas plus
Universite de Marne La Vallee | qu'eux ...
------------------------------
From: "Robert C. Paulsen, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Difficulty with C++ clock() function on Linux
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 13:52:16 -0500
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> The man page says:
>
> DESCRIPTION
> The clock() function returns an approximation of processor
> time used by the program.
>
OK, thanks. I guess MS and Borland have a different idea of processor
time and interpret it as elapsed time.
____________________________________________________________________
Robert Paulsen http://paulsen.home.texas.net
If my return address contains "ZAP." please remove it. Sorry for the
inconvenience but the unsolicited email is getting out of control.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: linux.admin.isp,alt.comp.linux.isp
Subject: Re: Arrgghh! How MUCH does it cost to set up Apache?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Don Baccus)
Date: 9 Apr 1999 12:41:05 PST
In article <Mq2P2.216$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Clay Reiche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0042_01BE81A5.21404680
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>I've set up an Apache web server in Florida using a 384kbs ADSL. The =
>phone company charged $99 for the installation AND the modem! Not bad! =
>For ADSL they charge based on the amount of band width you require. =
>384kbps costs me $55 a month from the phone company.
This is competitive with US West here in Portland, OR:
$110 set-up fee
$40/mo 256/256 symmetric
CISCO 675 SOHO router and a 3c509b PCI NIC for FREE
>Then there's the =
>ISP charge... I shopped for a week to find the best rate... $199 a month =
>and they gave me a block of 64 static IP addresses!(Don't know what I'm =
>gonna do with them all, but I'm sure I'll find something...) They =
>charged $49 for installation.
This hurts...in Portland, you can get $25/mo, two static IP, one
GB/mo (extra GB $10/mo pro-rated).
I've got $189/yr 256/256 service from my ISP, though the IP is
not static (I'm working on that issue with them, since I don't
want to switch to the $25/mo folks). In actuality, I've had
the same IP for six weeks now.
No set-up charge with either of these ISPs.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: linux.admin.isp,alt.comp.linux.isp
Subject: Re: Arrgghh! How MUCH does it cost to set up Apache?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Don Baccus)
Date: 9 Apr 1999 12:43:23 PST
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>maybe so you wouldn't need a router on the network?
Multiple domain names each with their own virtual web
server? (my webserver - AOLserver - at least will run
any number of virtual servers, either on separate IPs
or separate ports, per server daemon)
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
------------------------------
From: "Keith Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: persistent heap design advice please
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:26:37 -0500
> Bernd Strieder wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Hi
>
> Keith Morgan wrote:
> >
> > I am interested in creating a persistent heap library and would
appreciate
> > any hints or
> > suggestions on how to proceed. The 'persistent heap' would be a
region of
> > virtual memory
> > backed by a file and could be expanded or contracted.
>
> One big problem within a persistant heap are the pointers among the
data
> in it and their need of relocation if the heap is mapped in later
again
> at another address. There might be no guarantee that something is
mapped
> in twice at the same place. So one would have to provide facilities
for
> relocation which highly depends on the users of the persistant heap to
> keep the pointers right.
There are technique for handling this, including swizzling the pointers
at page fault time and providing a pointer mapping table.
> I think there are many other problems. Your solution might be error
> prone for the users, because there are many things which make no sense
> to store within a persistant heap, e.g. all kinds of handles to
> resources like sockets, file-descriptors, window-handles. So this
thing
> does not feel like a heap, it will never be a `heap'. The domain where
> this persistant heap could be used might be very small.
Good point to watch out for. The persistent heap is a substrate for a
specific application that shouldn't store handles to volatile objects.
Thanks for your thoughts.
-Keith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Subject: Re: kernel compilation error
Date: 09 Apr 1999 13:09:58 -0700
Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>with kernel-source-2.2.5-4 (the current redhat):
>
...
>In file included from cpqarray.c:54:
>cpqarray.h:34: linux/md.h: No such file or directory
>/usr/src/linux/include/linux/blk.h:398: warning: `do_ida' defined but not used
>make[2]: *** [cpqarray.o] Error 1
>make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.5/drivers/block'
>make[1]: *** [_modsubdir_block] Error 2
>make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.5/drivers'
>make: *** [_mod_drivers] Error 2
>
>what's wrong?
kernel headers are not installed.
Try
ln -s /usr/src/linux-2.2.5/include/linux /usr/include/linux
ln -s /usr/src/linux-2.2.5/include/asm /usr/include/asm
ln -s /usr/src/linux-2.2.5/include/asm-i386 /usr/include/asm-i386
cd /usr/src/linux-2.2.5
make dep ; make clean ; make modules ; make modules_install ; make bzImage
...
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Clint Byrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SMP Linux, Any Catches?
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 13:30:40 -0700
Excellent, thankyou. I think 2GB will suffice for a while to come.
The original reason I posted here was to find out if there were catches. I
read something a couple weeks ago that said SMP Linux didn't handle
Interrupts as well as NT did. Meaning, Processes got precedence over
interrupts, or something like that. Has that been remedied? Or was it just
fiction to begin with?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edmond Song)
Subject: The Auto Sleep of Linux??
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 20:57:43 GMT
I sent an enquiry days ago and got suggestions about the Auto sleep function.
Most of them suggested that I recompile the kernel which is a painful
process. I don't get the rational of this, my friend had another Compaq
Presario, he didn't compile the kernel and the apm works. Why should I
recompile in order to let it work? Does the compilation process take
some information from the bios or other hardware?
Thanks
Edmond
--
--
Edmon
Is Cao Cao a wicked man? That is only a novel, don't believe it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: (Q) Using the pgp signature on the kernel sources
Date: 9 Apr 1999 18:19:50 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> how exactly is one meant to use the file patch-l.m.n.gz.sign which
> comes with each kernel patch?
I don't use or know pgp5i. With the GNU Privacy Guard (must have the
optional RSA module installed):
gpgm --import signature.html
gpg --verify patch-2.2.5.bz2.sign patch-2.2.5.bz2
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Online Kernel debugger
From: Arun Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 23:38:05 GMT
Ravi Wijayaratne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for an online kernel debugger for linux 2.0.33 kernel
> version.
> Are there any avialbale for the later versions of linux ? If so where ?
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0590.html
-Arun
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...)
Date: 9 Apr 1999 21:01:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In article <GbgP2.902$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> Agreed, X sucks.
>
>> All of this is just by way of explanation. There are good
>> reasons to create user friendly GUIs and, ultimately for
>> IDEs (though many of the reasons are different).
>
> Now you're being rational.
>
>> But I
>> think there is also a lot of conditioned bias in people
>> coming from Windows to think that the more graphical and
>> integrated apps are more powerful.
>
> They are. Instant productivity. It's the basis of why Windows took over
> the world and why UNIX failed: it was the GUI that made the environment
> accessible to people who wanted to USE the computer to work rather than
> work on the computer itself (configuring it etc). (I know I'm not saying
> anything new here, but it would appear that all the UNIX folks probably
> need to play subliminal tapes or something while they're going to sleep
> to get it into their brains).
Much as I hate getting into one of these pissing contests, this is
totally offbase here. First, X doesn't suck or people (Citrix, etc)
wouldn't keep trying to re-invent it, badly (use VNC to NT, for an example).
UNIX had GUI environments long before Windows - I know, I used them
and Windows 1.0. Note, Windows was not adopted until Windows 3.0 -
1991, and was not truly usable until Windows 3.1. For instance,
if you left a networked machine running overnight with just the
clock running, when you came in in the morning and touched the
keyboard or moved the mouse they UAE'd.
What made Windows a success was that it installed over a significant
installed base of relatively cheap PC's running DOS. Prior to
Windows 3, they were also CLI based, only the command line interface
was far weaker and inconsistent than that of UNIX's. Globbing was
performed by the applications, not the shell.
As for configuration, over the years we spent more money configuring each
individual PC than they actually cost - and playing with autoexec.bat
and config.sys files and trying to find memory managers and restoring
stuff after crashes was a living nightmare. Meanwhile, I configured
the GUI for our UNIX server serving 400 users in the same amount of
time it took to configure 1 PC - but, of course, the UNIX box
had far more capabilities.
You could, for instance, run more than 1 app at a time, something
our windows 3 users usually couldn't. If Applix had been available
1 year sooner, we might never have had PC's in the first place.
Now with Linux, the desktop war might resume, this time with
MS, and not the users, as victims.
--
Dan Mercer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> This is partly
>> historical accident (generalizing from the transition
>> of MS-Dos to MS-Windows), partly socialization (Windows
>> users are trained to be application oriented rather
>> than tool and data format oriented and trained to learn
>> by trial and error rather than by reading documentation),
>
> That's not a particular correct way to state it. The fundamental
> principle is that people can relate to pushing buttons and such just like
> most can use a stereo system. UNIX, to continue the analogy, is like a
> stereo system without the front panel and all the circuits exposed: you
> have to solder something just to turn it on!
>
>> and
>> partly the effect of marketing and being used to a world
>> were mass producers of software that took hundreds of
>> thousands of person-hours to produce pay for shelf space
>> at CompUSA to sell their stuff to technoogical illiterates.
>> I think that both cultures need to work harder to see
>> the limitations of their own historical experiences and
>> biases.
>
> You're in the stone age obviously. Giving CLI equal credibility in the
> old CLI vs. GUI debate lessens YOUR credibility for engineering common
> sense. Just calling em like I see em.
>
> I think the defensive posture taken by your kind is probably because you
> just don't have a GUI that is useful or elegant (X sucks) so you have to
> patronize yourselves. Right? There's no reason why a program couldn't
> be offered with dual interfaces (GUI and CLI), the problem is that X
> means the GUI monolith is more trouble than it's worth because some
> comittee tried to make it all things to all people (kinda in the style of
> today's free UNIX?)
>
> Don
If X is so bad and so bloated, why is my Applixware - Mail, Words,
Builder, Spreadsheet, Presentation Manager, Database tool - so much
smaller than the combined footprints of the corresponding MS tools?
And that's not even counting in all the DLL's those tools rely on.
--
Dan Mercer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Stern)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 20:41:28 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >What I don't understand is why the low level syntax of, say, make hasn't
>> >been used as a foundation to build upon in an IDE. Most professional
>> >developers would then use IDEs that are based upon an open standard so no
>> >proprietary lock-in could occur (many IDEs would be available that
>> >basically just produce a make file and interface gcc and RCS e.g.).
>> >Personally, I think UNIX people like things complex for job security or
>> >some bull like that. Perhaps it just goes back to the failing of UNIX:
>> >no simple GUI std??
>> I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Let me explain.
>> Make is used as a foundation for more powerful tools such as
>> autoconf, imake, automake, etc. These are not GUI tools for an IDE, but
>> rather character app based tools that get jobs done for people that
>> need to do them. So the premise that nobody builds on top of make
>> is for Unix is wrong. The hypothesis that people prefer tools that
>> are not novice-friendly for job security is also wrong.
>
>> It shouldn't
>> be hard to see that there is going to be a big difference in the
>> typical style of free software applications that are created or enhanced
>> by individuals, to personally help them get their work done vs.
>> the style of a commercial application that is developed by a software
>> company to sell to the largest number of users.
>That's exactly what's hard to see: why the fundamentals of process
>improvement haven't been accepted.
There isn't any connection between what I wrote and notions
of "process improvement". There is a difference in goals
and available resources.
>> The difference in
>> motivations and payoffs and intended user community should be
>> pretty clear.
>
>Nope, not at all. How would having a decent IDE hurt??
Don't know about "hurt". There is a cost to create
it weighed against the benefits it provides.
If it has high cost to create and isn't as functional
as, say, Emacs, which already exists, then it is a net loss.
If it was a lot better in some way then it would be a gain.
>> The phenomenon of masses of volunteers creating
>> novice-friendly applications for Linux due to altruistic motives or
>> a desire to see a free software platform succeed is a relatively recent
>> phenomenon, and the efforts of these intentions haven't been fully
>> realized yet.
>
>Probably because the tools suck!
Now you are just indulging in non-specific ranting.
>> Another issue with Unix software is that graphical
>> apps make demands on the availability of X Windows running and
>> on bandwidth of a network connection that prohibit work in
>> many situations, so people typically refrain from doing something
>> that only pays off in eye candy rather than functionality if
>> it is going to be useful in fewer circumstances.
>
>Yeah right, like people develop over a LAN or WAN.
Yes, all of the time, and often over modem lines even.
I have done this many times, and I imagine most Unix programmers
have as well.
>Give me a break.
>Your child-like resistance is noted in your use of "eye candy" and
>dropped your case to ground zero.
Where is all of this flaming coming from? In the first place,
I am not resistant to IDEs, in the second place "eye candy" is
not a derogatory term. It's just a short hand for saying something
that has visual appeal without added functionality.
>> There is one part of the quoted text above that does hit near the
>> truth, I think - the libraries for creating GUI apps on
>> Unix were traditionally too hard to use. For example, I recently
>> worked at a software company where the main development environment
>> was HP-UX, and I found myself far and away preferring the character
>> based version of their debugger to the graphical one, even when
>> I was sitting at an X station, because the character based one
>> offered more functionality. It was obvious that so much effort
>> had gone into the initial production of the Motif GUI for the
>> visual one that access to functionality and bug fixes had
>> gotten left on, even though the underlying internals of the
>> debuggers were identical. This library situation is changing
>> rapidly.
>
>Agreed, X sucks.
X is excellent, for the most part. But there needs to be more
equally excellent software libraries layered on top of it to
realize its potential.
>> All of this is just by way of explanation. There are good
>> reasons to create user friendly GUIs and, ultimately for
>> IDEs (though many of the reasons are different).
>
>Now you're being rational.
Thanks for your approval.
>> But I
>> think there is also a lot of conditioned bias in people
>> coming from Windows to think that the more graphical and
>> integrated apps are more powerful.
>
>They are. Instant productivity. It's the basis of why Windows took over
>the world and why UNIX failed:
I think it has been pretty amply documented that the ability to
establish a software monopoly on the least expensive commodity
hardware platform and use economic leverage to force hardware vendors
of that platform to ship your software preinstalled with every
machine sold was a primary factor in the success of Microsoft Windows.
>it was the GUI that made the environment
>accessible to people who wanted to USE the computer to work rather than
>work on the computer itself (configuring it etc).
Lots of people used DOS on Intel before Windows, even though it
was a poor limited environment in almost every way. Why did they
do that? Because it has some utility and it was what they could
afford. Since Linux has made Unix affordable on the cheapest
hardware it has been growing at an amazing rate - faster than
MS-Windows. Linux does have a GUI and it could use more polish.
I don't think there is much disagreement about that.
>> This is partly
>> historical accident (generalizing from the transition
>> of MS-Dos to MS-Windows), partly socialization (Windows
>> users are trained to be application oriented rather
>> than tool and data format oriented and trained to learn
>> by trial and error rather than by reading documentation),
>
>That's not a particular correct way to state it. The fundamental
>principle is that people can relate to pushing buttons and such just like
>most can use a stereo system. UNIX, to continue the analogy, is like a
>stereo system without the front panel and all the circuits exposed: you
>have to solder something just to turn it on!
I don't think that "relate" has much to do with it. Rather it
is the case that menus are a very efficient way to get finite
choice information from a casual user and GUIs make it particularly
easy to navigate menus. Also it is convenient to work on
multiple tasks at once, be able to see those tasks, be able
to exchange some information between them, and be able to
display a high density of information at once on a common
display. For just entering new information and commands
from a very large set, typing if much more efficient.
That's why GUI-based editors don't have users
spelling out words by selecting letters from a menu.
These are things that are all about functionality and
not about 'relating'. That said, there is also value
in having a pleasant environment to look at while staring
at the screen all day and I don't denigrate that, your
misinterpretation of my earlier remarks not withstanding.
>> and
>> partly the effect of marketing and being used to a world
>> were mass producers of software that took hundreds of
>> thousands of person-hours to produce pay for shelf space
>> at CompUSA to sell their stuff to technoogical illiterates.
>> I think that both cultures need to work harder to see
>> the limitations of their own historical experiences and
>> biases.
>You're in the stone age obviously.
Obviously why?
>Giving CLI equal credibility in the
>old CLI vs. GUI debate lessens YOUR credibility for engineering common
>sense.
Where did I say this. I don't even know what it means.
Could you state explicitly what it is that you think I claimed?
I could just as easily make some broad claim like "You have
no credibility because you discount that value of thousands
of years of evolution towards sophisticated symbolic languages
and instead you want to go back to the level of pictorial
cave painting and pointing with sticks.". But I don't
think that is what you want, so I won't waste anyone's time
with such empty rhetorical straw-men.
>Just calling em like I see em.
No, you seem to be just reacting to keywords like some kind of
behaviorally conditioned animal, without "seeing" anything.
>I think the defensive posture taken by your kind
What in the world are you talking about. What am I supposed
to be defensive about and who is my kind?
>is probably because you
>just don't have a GUI that is useful or elegant (X sucks) so you have to
>patronize yourselves.
For the thousandth time, X is not a GUI. It is a graphical device
interface, like the MS-Windows GDI, except it has the ability to
be network transparent and portable to more machines.
>Right? There's no reason why a program couldn't
>be offered with dual interfaces (GUI and CLI),
Some programs would make sense as both GUI and CLI (some, like
XEmacs are), and this a good thing where it makes sense to do,
though it is extra work of course.
>the problem is that X
>means the GUI monolith is more trouble than it's worth because some
>comittee tried to make it all things to all people (kinda in the style of
>today's free UNIX?)
This comment bears no relation to any historical reality. Certainly
fewer people participated in the original design of X than in
the design of any version of Microsoft Windows. And the WIndows
GDI has a lot of similar kinds of configurability, albeit on
a node-locked host - otherwise it would not be possible to produce
X Servers than run on Microsoft Windows. In fact there are such
servers and many are highly sought after commercial products.
- Josh
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 18:28:45 -0400
From: Nitin Malik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: skbuff problems....
This is wrt to 2.0.35, in alloc_skb() an skbuff pointer is allocated,
skb = (struct skbuff *)(bptr + size) - 1
"bptr" - some allocated memory... and "size" some offset within bptr.
The address of (bptr+size-1) differs from that of "skb" by 148, thats
sizeof the skbuff structure.... does the cast force the pointer to
allocate at a different location?
TIA,
nitin
PS: i would appreciate it if u could send me a mail directly too....
thanks...
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
