Hi Brian,
> > > hard_header_len provides limitations for things like AF_PACKET, such
> > > that we don't allow transmitting packets smaller than this.
> >
> > OK; However, are we not supposed to mention hard_header_len also?
>
> No, my understanding is that we do not need to bother with
> hard_header_len ourselves -- ether_setup() establishes the appropriate
> L2 header parameters. I think that's covered a little better below.
OK. I got you.
>
> > > This is the essentially the same bug (and fix) that brcmfmac had,
> > > fixed in commit cb39288fd6bb ("brcmfmac: use ndev-
> >needed_headroom
> > > to reserve additional header space").
> >
> > OK; I read this commit:
> >
> > "... According to definition of LL_RESERVED_SPACE() and hard_header_len,
> we should use hard_header_len to reserve for L2 header, like ethernet
> header(ETH_HLEN) in our case and use needed_headroom for the additional
> headroom needed by hardware..."
>
> Yeah, that's probably a little more verbose and accurate description, which is
> partly why I referred to that commit :)
>
> > So, does it mean, hard_header_len is already considered by upper layer?
>
> Right, it's set by ether_setup().
Yes, Thanks.
Acked-by: Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi.gbhat@xxxxxxx>
Regards,
Ganapathi
