From: FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:59:06 +0900
> I see. The following patch is OK?
This breaks existing 32-bit programs which really want a 32-bit value
there.
Please sit and think about this problem for some time before proposing
more patches.
We have a whole c
From: FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Packet socket: fix for 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userland
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:59:06 +0900
> From: "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Packet socket: fix for 64-bit kernel and
From: "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Packet socket: fix for 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userland
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:48:02 -0800 (PST)
> From: FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:41:41 +0900
>
>
From: FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:41:41 +0900
> From: "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Packet socket: fix for 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userland
> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:36:06 -0800 (PST)
>
&g
From: "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Packet socket: fix for 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userland
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:36:06 -0800 (PST)
> > tpacket_hdr structure includes 'unsigned long' though kernel and
> > userlan
From: FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:24:49 +0900
> tpacket_hdr structure includes 'unsigned long' though kernel and
> userland shares it in the mmapped ring buffer.
>
> Seems it would be better to fix all data structures in the header file
> than fixing only tpacket
