From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:50:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:50:31 -0400 Received: from tyranny.egregious.net ([206.159.99.12]:61704 "HELO tyranny.egregious.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:50:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:50:16 -0700 From: Will To: "David S. Miller" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] skb destructor enhancement idea Message-ID: <20010625155016.B17735@egregious.net> In-Reply-To: <20010618134644.A5938@egregious.net> <20010618145331.A32166@wacko.asicdesigners.com> <20010621161349.A27654@egregious.net> <20010625140613.A17207@egregious.net> <15159.48229.326223.682824@pizda.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <15159.48229.326223.682824@pizda.ninka.net>; from davem@redhat.com on Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 03:34:13PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David S. Miller wrote: > I think the idea totally stinks. The idea, or just the performance implications of my particular implementation? If this could be done without a global spinlock would you still object to the construction of the small linked list in each skb? > Add an ifdef and the knobs you need to the skb struct directly just > like netfilter does. So I should #ifdef throughout the tcp and socket code wherever skb's 'destructor' is called to call mine as well? And multiply that by N driver writers who'd like to do the same thing? Sounds messy... -- -Will :: AD6XL :: http://tyranny.egregious.net/~will/ Orton :: finger will@tyranny.egregious.net for GPG public key