[PATCH] report that OAM is not supported

Roman Kagan 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
> vpi?

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 mailing list