From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] Disable rp_filter for IPsec packets Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20110315.163552.183047357.davem@davemloft.net> References: <4D7E9558.7030102@cbnco.com> <20110314.152704.98879085.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: msmith@cbnco.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:42056 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751366Ab1COXfO (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:35:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Michael Smith Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:21:29 -0400 (EDT) > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, David Miller wrote: > >> > David Miller wrote: >> > >> >> Existing arguments might be large enough to carry more than one piece >> >> of information :-) >> > >> > If it's encoded into another argument, would there be more overhead >> > from bit-shifting it out than you'd save by losing an argument? >> >> It sure will if it's the different between the argument being passed >> in a register vs. on the stack. > > I have a patch to replace u32 mark with an sk_buff. The mark is in the > sk_buff already, and so is the secpath field I need. Would that be > acceptable? I can hold off until the merge window is over. Sounds good, and yes please wait until after the merge window.