> is: 
> (line 44:)
>  * 14.07.1994 TR -- Now shouldn't cause those NFS 'odd length' messages.
> 
> (line 547:)
> 	/* This should solve the NFS odd length packet problem... */
> 	head->m_data += (((sizeof(struct ether_header) + 3) & ~3) -
> 	    sizeof(struct ether_header));

hmm.  sounds odd.  "whatever."

>    you don't even need to build a table, you can have a simple function,
>    e.g. int arc_padding(u_char packet_type); which returned the number of
>    bytes of padding necessary.  it could consist of a short switch table,
>    defaulting to 0 bytes of padding.
> 
> You're saying, a subroutine call is cheaper than a 256 byte array
> indexing? Or is it simply a matter of programming style?

it's a matter of programming style; _I_ would do it as a function call
(or macro invocation; they look the same, mostly).  you could just
#define arc_padding(packet_type) [ ... ]
to be an array lookup...



cgd