From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [NETFILTER]: Move extensions' arguments into compound structure (1/2) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:31:09 +0200 Message-ID: <48E8DDBD.20906@trash.net> References: <48E8CF70.9090309@trash.net> <48E8D493.5@trash.net> <48E8D957.3000803@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netfilter Developer Mailing List To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:47446 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754310AbYJEPbP (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:31:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Sunday 2008-10-05 11:12, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> Ok just let me rebase all the stuff, and I'll send you something >>> that goes on top of 8d51a66159a6fbc27342ee80e5b69910a679735e . >> Thanks. As an added explanation - the benchmarking I did for nftables >> indicated that we're somewhere between 50 and 110 cycles for a "usual" >> rule on my x2. So its really easy to degrade performance significantly >> by just requiring a few more cycles. The upside is that it works in both >> directions :) > > Can I at least make it a single patch (i.e. on top of the batch of 6 > that do the minimal transformation) or does it need to be right from > the start? (at the expensive of enlarging the patch and setting up > the reviewer ;-) I'm not sure which batch of 6 you're referring to, but in general having a lower patch size for these transformations is preferrable to me; having a slight potential performance degradation that is fixed up immediately is not a real problem. I hope that answered your question.