Re: [PATCH] TCPCT+1: initial SYN exchange with SYNACK data

[William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>]

William Allen Simpson wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>> struct tcp_sock is already WAY TOO BIG on 64-bit systems, adding 20
>> more bytes to it for some odd-ball feature is not something I'm
>> willing to do, sorry.
>>
> I see we're cross-posting at the same time....  Since in your previous
> review (last year) this issue was not mentioned, is there some other
> data organization that you would suggest?
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/102779
> 
>   "This looks mostly fine to me.  I would even advocate not using a config
>    option for this."
> 
As a quick followup, I wish this had been raised in my previous posting,
where I'd given the headers, for exactly this kind of feedback. :-)

Given that size is now a concern, would a single kref pointer with a u16
field for flags be acceptable?  I could bury the rest in the kref block.

Would that be acceptable without a config option?