Hi Carsten, On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Carsten Andrich <carsten.andrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'd ack the patch, too. > However if we start clarifying the bitmask situation, we should do it > properly. packet.7 mentions TP_STATUS_xyz several times and never > actually differentiates between setting bits and setting the whole > tp_status variable. Actually both occurs inside the kernel: > http://lingrok.org/xref/linux-net-next/net/packet/af_packet.c#798 > http://lingrok.org/xref/linux-net-next/net/packet/af_packet.c#2300 Note the section I touched covers PACKET_RX_RING. The second occurrence you quote concerns PACKET_TX_RING - the send side. So far, TP_STATUS_LOSING is the only status I've stumbled upon, but I know there are other values possible. > > I could prepare another patch for review, that clarifies the tp_status > usage for all references to TP_STATUS_xyz values. > Unless Stefan would like to do this himself, since it's actually his > "discovery" ;) I don't have a patch cooking for the rest of the bits, so if you want to have a stab at it, go ahead :). Thanks for reviewing and submitting the patch, guys! Stefan. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
