From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Allen Simpson Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCPCT+1: initial SYN exchange with SYNACK data Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 04:11:42 -0400 Message-ID: <4AC9AA3E.2090001@gmail.com> References: <4AC79905.1030904@gmail.com> <20091005.002719.146534039.davem@davemloft.net> <4AC9A714.7060903@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f173.google.com ([209.85.211.173]:42923 "EHLO mail-yw0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753392AbZJEIMW (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Oct 2009 04:12:22 -0400 Received: by ywh3 with SMTP id 3so2725131ywh.22 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:11:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AC9A714.7060903@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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?