Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:18:11 +0200 | From | Francois Romieu <> | Subject | Re: RFC: configuring net interfaces |
| |
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@intrepid.pm.waw.pl> écrit : [...] > But it's still more complicated than the first one and I'm not sure > if doing that is worth it > > > struc sub_req { > > int sub_ioctl; > > ... as we lose 4 bytes here (currently the union of structs in ifreq > is limited to 16 bytes)
I missed that. Point taken.
[...] > struct ifreq { > char name[16]; > union { > ... > struct { > int sub_command; > int data_length; > void *data; > } > }ifru; > } > > ... while "data" would be fr_protocol, eth_physical etc. > > It's (of course) more complicated, but there is a gain: > - we can have different size requests (from 0 bytes to, say, 100KB)
Fine with me (some day we'll surely end passing those data via a read if we need 300Mo but we're not there :o) ).
[Other points]
Yes.
-- Ueimor - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |