RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Re-define PKT_PROT_LEN to be bigger.

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, should have said... These are patches against the pvops 
xen/stable-2.6.32.x branch.

  Cheers,

    Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [mailto:jeremy@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 14 December 2010 22:17
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Re-define PKT_PROT_LEN to be
> bigger.
> 
> On 12/14/2010 12:35 PM, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > Re-define PKT_PROT_LEN to be big enough to handle maximal IPv4 and
> TCP options and phrase
> > the definition so that it's reasonably obvious that's what it's
> for.
> 
> Which kernel are these for?
> 
> Thanks,
>     J
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/xen/netback/netback.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/xen/netback/netback.c
> b/drivers/xen/netback/netback.c
> > index c448675..1a4a20e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/xen/netback/netback.c
> > +++ b/drivers/xen/netback/netback.c
> > @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static inline int netif_get_page_ext(struct
> page *pg, unsigned int *_group, unsi
> >   * packet processing on them (netfilter, routing, etc). 72 is
> enough
> >   * to cover TCP+IP headers including options.
> >   */
> > -#define PKT_PROT_LEN 72
> > +#define PKT_PROT_LEN    (ETH_HLEN + 4 + (15 * 4) + (15 * 4))
> >
> >  static inline pending_ring_idx_t pending_index(unsigned i)
> >  {


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel