On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 21:51:36 -0500 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 5:42 PM Xie He wrote:
> >
> > The "dev_has_header" function, recently added in
> > commit d549699048b4 ("net/packet: fix packet receive on L3 devices
> > without visible hard header"),
> > is more accurate as criter
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:43 AM Eyal Birger wrote:
>
> As such, may I suggest making this explicit by making
> dev_hard_header() use dev_has_header()?
That is a good idea. We may submit another patch for that.
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 4:52 AM Willem de Bruijn
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 5:42 PM Xie He wrote:
> >
> > The "dev_has_header" function, recently added in
> > commit d549699048b4 ("net/packet: fix packet receive on L3 devices
> > without visible hard header"),
> > is more accurate as c
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 5:42 PM Xie He wrote:
>
> The "dev_has_header" function, recently added in
> commit d549699048b4 ("net/packet: fix packet receive on L3 devices
> without visible hard header"),
> is more accurate as criteria for determining whether a device exposes
> the LL header to upper l
The "dev_has_header" function, recently added in
commit d549699048b4 ("net/packet: fix packet receive on L3 devices
without visible hard header"),
is more accurate as criteria for determining whether a device exposes
the LL header to upper layers, because in addition to dev->header_ops,
it also che
