[PATCH] report that OAM is not supported
rkagan at mail.ru
Tue Apr 26 04:25:18 EDT 2005
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:02:40AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
> > + u32 vci, cached_vci = 0;
> > + u16 vpi, cached_vpi = 0;
> Don't you only need 16 bits for the vci and 8 bits for the
Hmm, indeed. The table I looked at was split into 4 bit cells which I
confused with octets :)
> On the other hand, won't the code be more efficient if
> they are both just "unsigned"?
Why would it be? We dont enforce any alignment, so the compiler is free
to choose the most efficient one.
> Finally, the ATM code uses
> short for vpi and int for vci (and so do we in
> struct usbatm_vcc_data and usbatm_find_vcc), so why not just
> use those here?
Well, I was somewhat uncomfortable with bit shift operators and signed
types. They may be OK, though: I'll try to check with a C handbook.
Anyway that was more about putting var and cached_var declarations on
the same line, to emphasize their relationship and make certain that
both are of the same type.
More information about the Usbatm