Thank you - but what I actually wanted/needed to know is:
* OK to ditch the add48/sub48 functions (which take a pointer to u64 and thus are useless on 48:-bit fields)?
* OK to instead use the following macros instead?
#define add48(seqno, b) seqno = (seqno + (b)) & DCCP_MAX_SEQNO
#define sub48(seqno, b) add48(seqno, COMPLEMENT48((b)))
#define inc48(seqno) add48(seqno, 1)
Reasons:
1) this kind of sequence arithmetic seems unlikely to be used for main DCCP
data structures which all use u64 to store sequence numbers (e.g. all places
where dccp_inc_seqno is used)
2) ccid3 has very long names, it makes things simpler to put assignent into the macro
3) with a function this kind of assignment is not possible, and the operation is actually simple
Gerrit
Quoting Ian McDonald:
| On 12/19/06, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > I am not fussy about getting the patches into 2.6.20 at all cost. I am reconsidering
| > the add48/sub48 and the dccp_inc_seqno functions/macros.
| >
| Gerrit,
|
| I think leave your code in as it covered more cases than mine and it
| works - I've been doing quite a bit of testing of CCID3 and I'm happy
| with your code as per your patch series.
|
| Ian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
