From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Johann Baudy" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Packet socket: mmapped IO: PACKET_TX_RING Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:19:09 +0100 Message-ID: <7e0dd21a0811111119h3675a137t422bd508ccf2c963@mail.gmail.com> References: <20081106080316.GA32337@ioremap.net> <20081106194032.GB31673@ioremap.net> <7e0dd21a0811070836q8deb631qe8093282229b403e@mail.gmail.com> <7e0dd21a0811110343v677c511ck69314fa19ace44b7@mail.gmail.com> <7e0dd21a0811110950g1182b86cv3e938df93f53d29d@mail.gmail.com> <20081111185036.GA17717@ioremap.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Lovich, Vitali" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: "Evgeniy Polyakov" , "David Miller" Return-path: Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.189]:53830 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751235AbYKKTTM (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:19:12 -0500 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 18so35837fkq.5 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:19:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20081111185036.GA17717@ioremap.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Evgeniy, David, > I think you should be almost 200% sure that skb is not allowed to grow up :) Well! I'm lost :) How can we forward a pointer from skb allocation to skb destructor without adding a kind of destructor argument in sk_buff struct? Thanks in advance, Johann On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > Hi. > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:14:54AM -0800, Lovich, Vitali (vlovich@qualcomm.com) wrote: >> Right, we're saying the exact same thing I think. I had wanted just a void * that is specific to PACKET_MMAP, so that no one else pays the price if they don't need to. You instead want to make it a feature flag - that's fine I think, but we need to make a note of that in the Kconfig file (that enabling PACKET_MMAP increases all skbs by the size of a long). I'd still rather prefer using the fragments instead though, because it seems like a reasonable solution that has 0 impact on any other code. > > I think you should be almost 200% sure that skb is not allowed to grow up :) > > -- > Evgeniy Polyakov > -- Johann Baudy johaahn@gmail.com