All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: dccp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:45:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <480C7E50.3050508@trash.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080414073915.GA9655@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk>

Tomasz Grobelny wrote:
> Dnia Sunday 20 of April 2008, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo napisał:
>> Em Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:42:32PM +0200, Tomasz Grobelny escreveu:
>>>> When the patch failed to compile I thought about those alternatives.
>>>> Trying to extend the dccp_skb_cb over and above what is in there will
>>>> be messy, since the IPv4/v6 parameters are required by other
>>>> subsystems.
>>> If inet{,6}_skb_parm is used only outside DCCP code then why at all
>>> should it be placed in struct dccp_skb_cb taking up quite a lot of
>>> valuable space? Why not put it directly in struct sk_buff? Especially
>>> that it is present in struct udp_skb_cb, struct tcp_skb_cb as well.
>> Because all this is used in skb->cb[], a scratchpad for protocols to
>> use, we can go back to what we had before, that is to not reserve use
>> for inet6?_skb_parm but be sure to zero it before passing it to IP, as
>> we don't want IP to be confused with things being non zero there. Then
>> we can use all its space.
>>
> Several questions regarding this case:
> 1. What about SCTP? It doesn't have inet6?_skb_parm in it's structure that is 
> stored in skb->cb. So does it contain a potential bug (that is to be fixed) 
> or is it not needed there or what?

Judging by a quick grep, SCTP only uses the CB on input and
appears to be fine.

> 2. If the sole purpose of this change was to keep skb->cb zeroed then it 
> doesn't seem to me like the right solution. Wasting about 20 bytes instead of 
> zeroing them when needed I would consider at least weird. I understand that 
> TCP and UDP may have enough space left but it just turned out that DCCP 
> doesn't.

It was the safest solution that late in a release. It also
avoids to memset the cb unnecessarily. If the room is not
enough anymore, its easy to go back to using memset.

> 3. If it's IP layer that needs zeroes then why not clear skb->cb in IP layer?

That would certainly work, but it adds unnecessary costs for
the other protocols that don't need this.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: Tomasz Grobelny <tomasz@grobelny.oswiecenia.net>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>,
	dccp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:45:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <480C7E50.3050508@trash.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200804202212.12283.tomasz@grobelny.oswiecenia.net>

Tomasz Grobelny wrote:
> Dnia Sunday 20 of April 2008, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo napisał:
>> Em Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:42:32PM +0200, Tomasz Grobelny escreveu:
>>>> When the patch failed to compile I thought about those alternatives.
>>>> Trying to extend the dccp_skb_cb over and above what is in there will
>>>> be messy, since the IPv4/v6 parameters are required by other
>>>> subsystems.
>>> If inet{,6}_skb_parm is used only outside DCCP code then why at all
>>> should it be placed in struct dccp_skb_cb taking up quite a lot of
>>> valuable space? Why not put it directly in struct sk_buff? Especially
>>> that it is present in struct udp_skb_cb, struct tcp_skb_cb as well.
>> Because all this is used in skb->cb[], a scratchpad for protocols to
>> use, we can go back to what we had before, that is to not reserve use
>> for inet6?_skb_parm but be sure to zero it before passing it to IP, as
>> we don't want IP to be confused with things being non zero there. Then
>> we can use all its space.
>>
> Several questions regarding this case:
> 1. What about SCTP? It doesn't have inet6?_skb_parm in it's structure that is 
> stored in skb->cb. So does it contain a potential bug (that is to be fixed) 
> or is it not needed there or what?

Judging by a quick grep, SCTP only uses the CB on input and
appears to be fine.

> 2. If the sole purpose of this change was to keep skb->cb zeroed then it 
> doesn't seem to me like the right solution. Wasting about 20 bytes instead of 
> zeroing them when needed I would consider at least weird. I understand that 
> TCP and UDP may have enough space left but it just turned out that DCCP 
> doesn't.

It was the safest solution that late in a release. It also
avoids to memset the cb unnecessarily. If the room is not
enough anymore, its easy to go back to using memset.

> 3. If it's IP layer that needs zeroes then why not clear skb->cb in IP layer?

That would certainly work, but it adds unnecessary costs for
the other protocols that don't need this.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-04-21 11:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-04-14  7:39 [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version Gerrit Renker
2008-04-14  7:39 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-14 23:45 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-14 23:45   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-15 15:14 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-04-15 15:14   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-15 15:21 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-04-15 15:21   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-15 18:01 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-15 18:01   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-15 19:38 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-15 19:38   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-15 20:14   ` inconsistent lock state with kernel 2.6.24.4 Bernard Pidoux
2008-04-15 20:04 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-04-15 20:04   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-04-16  6:20 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-04-16  6:20   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-16  7:43 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-04-16  7:43   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-17 18:03 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-17 18:03   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-17 18:29 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-04-17 18:29   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-17 20:03 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-17 20:03   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-17 20:20 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-17 20:20   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-18 10:13 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-04-18 10:13   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-19 20:42 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-19 20:42   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-20 16:57 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-04-20 16:57   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-04-20 20:12 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-20 20:12   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-21 11:45 ` Patrick McHardy [this message]
2008-04-21 11:45   ` Patrick McHardy
2008-04-21 13:12 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-04-21 13:12   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-04-21 16:17 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-21 16:17   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-22  4:56 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version Patrick McHardy
2008-04-22  4:56   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Patrick McHardy
2008-04-22 17:30 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-04-22 17:30   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-22 17:41 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-04-22 17:41   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-22 20:30 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-22 20:30   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-22 20:45 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-22 20:45   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-22 22:06 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked David Miller
2008-04-22 22:06   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set David Miller
2008-04-22 22:42 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked David Miller
2008-04-22 22:42   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set David Miller
2008-04-23  0:03 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version Patrick McHardy
2008-04-23  0:03   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Patrick McHardy
2008-04-25 19:33 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-25 19:33   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-25 20:40 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-04-25 20:40   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-04-25 20:58 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked David Miller
2008-04-25 20:58   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set David Miller
2008-04-28  7:21 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-04-28  7:21   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-28  7:39 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked David Miller
2008-04-28  7:39   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set David Miller
2008-04-28 13:10 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-04-28 13:10   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-28 21:03 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-28 21:03   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-30  7:53 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-04-30  7:53   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-05-02 20:39 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-05-02 20:39   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-05-02 20:56 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked Gerrit Renker
2008-05-02 20:56   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-04-24 21:51 [PATCH 1/1] [DCCP][QPOLICY]: External interface changes Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-24 22:16 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-24 22:16   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-28 15:08 ` Gerrit Renker
2008-04-28 15:08   ` Gerrit Renker
2008-04-28 21:29 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-28 21:29   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-16  8:36 [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv3 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version Gerrit Renker
2008-04-16  8:36 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv3 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-28 15:19 ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv3 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version Gerrit Renker
2008-04-28 15:19   ` [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv3 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set Gerrit Renker
2008-04-28 20:12 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-28 20:12   ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-11 10:24 [PATCH 0/5] [DCCP]: Queuing policies Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-11 10:24 ` Tomasz Grobelny
2008-04-14  6:50 ` Gerrit Renker
2008-04-14  6:50   ` Gerrit Renker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=480C7E50.3050508@trash.net \
    --to=kaber@trash.net \
    --cc=dccp@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.