From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: multi bpf filter will impact performance? Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:44:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20101201.104450.183053379.davem@davemloft.net> References: <18eaf7d286236427b1632b9af62be513@localhost> <20101201.101809.71122121.davem@davemloft.net> <1291227893.2856.1039.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hagen@jauu.net, xiaosuo@gmail.com, wirelesser@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: eric.dumazet@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:50382 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752882Ab0LASoX (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:44:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1291227893.2856.1039.camel@edumazet-laptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Eric Dumazet Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:24:53 +0100 > A third work in progress (from my side) is to add a check in > sk_chk_filter() to remove the memvalid we added lately to protect the > LOAD M(K). I understand your idea, but the static checkers are still going to complain. So better add a huge comment in sk_run_filter() explaining why the checker's complaint should be ignored :-)