Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:02:20 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@networx.ch> To: Vijay Singh <vijju.singh@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: M_TRAILINGSPACE() Message-ID: <5062E0BC.1010603@networx.ch> In-Reply-To: <CALCNsJSWadFMxC831mH9BnJCTvimjwtAJnnTUuUdGms%2BvVjuXg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CALCNsJSWadFMxC831mH9BnJCTvimjwtAJnnTUuUdGms%2BvVjuXg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26.09.2012 02:55, Vijay Singh wrote: > Folks, does the following patch make sense: > > server@[/u/vijay/bsd/CODE/cur/sys/sys]# svn diff mbuf.h > Index: mbuf.h > =================================================================== > --- mbuf.h (revision 240548) > +++ mbuf.h (working copy) > @@ -832,6 +832,8 @@ > ((m)->m_flags & M_EXT ? \ > (M_WRITABLE(m) ? (m)->m_ext.ext_buf + (m)->m_ext.ext_size \ > - ((m)->m_data + (m)->m_len) : 0) : \ > + (m)->m_flags & M_PKTHDR ? \ > + ((m)->m_pktdat[MHLEN] - ((m)->m_data + (m)->m_len)) : \ > &(m)->m_dat[MLEN] - ((m)->m_data + (m)->m_len)) Isn't this the same result in both cases? And isn't there a '&' missing? -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5062E0BC.1010603>