From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use list_head-s in inetpeer.c Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:57:23 +0300 Message-ID: <47381573.5020506@openvz.org> References: <4735C11A.7060501@openvz.org> <20071110.213107.94486766.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from sacred.ru ([62.205.161.221]:56799 "EHLO sacred.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755449AbXKLIyv (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:54:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071110.213107.94486766.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > From: Pavel Emelyanov > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:32:58 +0300 > >> The inetpeer.c tracks the LRU list of inet_perr-s, but makes >> it by hands. Use the list_head-s for this. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov > > This makes every inetpeer struct consume 8 more bytes, and on some > systems we have can have many of these objects active. That space > savings is why this was done the way it was. No. I remove _two_ pointers unused_next and unused_prevp, and add the list_head, which is _two_ pointers as well. I've even checked the compilation on both i386 and x86_64 - the sizeof(struct inet_peer) is not changed. You must have overlooked the unused_prevp member, because it is declared in the same line as the unused_next. Or I miss something else? > It would be nice to have "tailq" like interfaces in linux/list.h > for situations like this. > > Please do not submit a patch implementing that until the 2.6.25 > merge window, however, thanks. If my explanation above is correct, should I delay this patch until the 2.6.25 anyway? Thanks, Pavel