Hello!
> So I have four questions:
> a) Should not ethertap try reallocate skb as (for example) ppp does if
> there is not enough space?
It should not. Actually, I've just remembered that we agreed to
kill this reservation of two bytes before frame but I forgot to make
it :( It is my fault...
Alan, what can you propose? Is it too late to fix it?
> b) Even if I do (a), ethertap will have to copy data on each IPX transmit
> :-( It looks like that IPX should reserve more than
> hard_header_len + header_length bytes. But how much? For
> ethertap+IPX+any ethernet frame, rounding up to multiple of 16 as
> ipv4/ip_output does, is sufficient. But I really think that code should
> not rely on that there is at least two byte difference between header
> size and header size rounded up to multiple of 16.
It relies on the fact that IEEE 802.1 frames have broken alignment
and stacks must take it into account. Because 802.1 is primary one
on ethernet media, all the protocols not requiring alignment suffer.
It is unavoidable.
> d) Is there another solution which I oversight?
Yes. Not to reserve these two bytes.
Alexey Kuznetsov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
