Re: [PATCH 1/3] inetpeer: Support ipv6 addresses.

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:51:08 +0800

> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:33:49 +0800
>>
>>> I have thought about converting this AVL tree to rbtree. When I saw
>>> the comment above, I gave it up, because rbtree makes this structure
>>> bigger. If ipv6 support is added, I think it is time to turn to
>>> rbtree. :)
>>
>> If it takes size over 128 bytes, it is probably still a bad idea.
>> Right now it is just under 128.
>>
> 
> Why 128? The current size of inet_peer is 64 bytes, and after your
> ipv6 patch, it is just 80. And, inet_peer is allocated from its own
> mem_cache, so the size of the memory for it should not be aligned to
> 2^n.

Sorry, I was taking into the consideration other work I am doing
which will move all of the routing metrics into inet_peer as well.

With ipv6 address support, it fits perfectly into 128 bytes on
64-bit.