From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6][INET]: Consolidate inet(6)_hash_connect.
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:01:53 -0200
Message-ID: <20080131130153.GP1819@ghostprotocols.net>
References: <47A1BFC9.2030603@openvz.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, devel@openvz.org
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:43566 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1764806AbYAaNB6 (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:01:58 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47A1BFC9.2030603@openvz.org>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Em Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 03:32:09PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov escreveu:
> These two functions are the same except for what they call
> to "check_established" and "hash" for a socket.
> 
> This saves half-a-kilo for ipv4 and ipv6.

Good stuff!

Yesterday I was perusing tcp_hash and I think we could have the hashinfo
pointer stored perhaps in sk->sk_prot.

That way we would be able to kill tcp_hash(), inet_put_port() could
receive just sk, etc.

What do you think?

- Arnaldo