On Thursday 03 January 2008 6:40:07 pm Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 18:13 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > static struct sk_buff *__skb_clone(struct sk_buff *n, struct sk_buff
> > *skb)
> > {
> > #define C(x) n->x = skb->x
> >
> > n->next = n->prev = NULL;
> > n->sk = NULL;
> > __copy_skb_header(n, skb);
> >
> > C(len);
> > C(data_len);
> > C(mac_len);
> > n->hdr_len = skb->nohdr ? skb_headroom(skb) : skb->hdr_len;
> > n->cloned = 1;
> > n->nohdr = 0;
> > n->destructor = NULL;
> > C(iif);
> > C(tail);
> > C(end);
> > C(head);
> > C(data);
> > C(truesize);
> > atomic_set(&n->users, 1);
> >
> > atomic_inc(&(skb_shinfo(skb)->dataref));
> > skb->cloned = 1;
> >
> > return n;
> > #undef C
>
> Perhaps move the skb->cloned = 1 to just after n->cloned = 1
> or
> skb->cloned = n->cloned = 1;
> or maybe
> skb->cloned = 1;
> C(cloned);
I thought about that, but I kinda like how the parent-skb-only changes are
grouped together at the end. I think the distinction helps readability, but
then again we've already seen how subjective readability can be :)
--
paul moore
linux security @ hp
--
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
