Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> --- linux-2.4.2/drivers/net/wan/cycx_x25.c Tue Feb 13 19:15:05 2001
> +++ linux-2.4.2.acme/drivers/net/wan/cycx_x25.c Mon Feb 26 23:38:48 2001
> @@ -812,7 +812,6 @@
> if (bitm)
> return; /* more data is coming */
>
> - dev->last_rx = jiffies; /* timestamp */
> chan->rx_skb = NULL; /* dequeue packet */
>
> ++chan->ifstats.rx_packets;
> @@ -820,6 +819,7 @@
>
> skb->mac.raw = skb->data;
> netif_rx(skb);
> + dev->last_rx = jiffies; /* timestamp */
> }
>
> /* Connect interrupt handler. */
looks ok
> @@ -1454,11 +1454,12 @@
> *ptr = event;
>
> skb->dev = dev;
> - skb->protocol = htons(ETH_P_X25);
> + skb->protocol = __constant_htons(ETH_P_X25);
The kernel definition for the htons macro should cover this..
> skb->mac.raw = skb->data;
> skb->pkt_type = PACKET_HOST;
>
> netif_rx(skb);
> + dev->last_rx = jiffies; /* timestamp */
I wonder about this... For this function it is sending an event, not
really a packet. So should we really timestamp it like a real packet?
If so, you should increase rx_packets and rx_bytes stats too, as well as
update last_rx here.
Jeff
--
Jeff Garzik | "You see, in this world there's two kinds of
Building 1024 | people, my friend: Those with loaded guns
MandrakeSoft | and those who dig. You dig." --Blondie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
