From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6][INET]: Consolidate inet(6)_hash_connect. Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:39:55 -0200 Message-ID: <20080131133954.GU1819@ghostprotocols.net> References: <47A1BFC9.2030603@openvz.org> <20080131130153.GP1819@ghostprotocols.net> <47A1CABB.8050805@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , David Miller , Linux Netdev List , devel@openvz.org To: Pavel Emelyanov Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:34126 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764649AbYAaNkA (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:40:00 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47A1CABB.8050805@openvz.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Em Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 04:18:51PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov escreveu: > Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > 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. > > But each proto will still have its own hashfn, so proto's > callbacks will be called to hash/unhash sockets, so this will > give us just one extra dereference. No? > > > What do you think? > > Hmmm... Even raw_hash, etc may become simpler. On the other hand > maybe this is a good idea, but I'm not very common with this code > yet to foresee such things in advance... I think that we should > try to prepare a patch and look, but if you have smth ready, then > it's better to review your stuff first. gimme some minutes - Arnaldo