* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070128 06:06]:
> From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:49:49 +0200
>
> > Since the SACK receive cache doesn't need the data to be in host
> > order we also remove the ntohl in the checking loop.
> ...
> > - for (i = 0; i< num_sacks; i++) {
> > - __u32 start_seq = ntohl(sp[i].start_seq);
> > - __u32 end_seq = ntohl(sp[i].end_seq);
> > + for (i = 0; i < num_sacks; i++) {
> > + __u32 start_seq = sp[i].start_seq;
> > + __u32 end_seq = sp[i].end_seq;
> ...
> > }
> > tp->recv_sack_cache[i].start_seq = start_seq;
> > tp->recv_sack_cache[i].end_seq = end_seq;
>
> Ok, and now the sack cache and the real sack blocks are
> stored in net-endian and this works out because we only
> make direct equality comparisons with the recv_sack_cache[]
> entry values?
Yes. The only comparison we do with recv_sack_cache entries is != and
that works for net-endian just fine.
The only reason recv_sack_cache was in host-order before that was that
start_seq and end_seq were used to do more before/after comparisons for
DSACK.
Baruch
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
