lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:03:58 +0200 (EET) From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> To: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com> cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] tcp: Remove unrequired operations in tcp_push() On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Krishna Kumar2 wrote: > "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> wrote on 12/10/2009 03:56:59 > PM: > > > Re: [PATCH 2/3] tcp: Remove unrequired operations in tcp_push() > > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Krishna Kumar2 wrote: > > > > > "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> wrote on 12/10/2009 > 01:40:51 > > > PM: > > > > > > > Re: [PATCH 2/3] tcp: Remove unrequired operations in tcp_push() > > > > > > > > > > > > > static inline void tcp_push(struct sock *sk, int flags, int > mss_now, > > > > > int nonagle) > > > > > { > > > > > - struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk); > > > > > - > > > > > if (tcp_send_head(sk)) { > > > > > - struct sk_buff *skb = tcp_write_queue_tail(sk); > > > > > - if (!(flags & MSG_MORE) || forced_push(tp)) > > > > > + struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk); > > > > > + > > > > > + if (!(flags & MSG_MORE) || forced_push(tp)) { > > > > > + struct sk_buff *skb = tcp_write_queue_tail(sk); > > > > > + > > > > > tcp_mark_push(tp, skb); > > > > > > > > I suppose one could kill the temporary variable completely then? > > > > > > I did consider that, but kept it this way for readability reasons. > > > Should I change it? > > > > Honestly that doesn't look that fuzzy code even if you'd stick it into > the > > tcp_mark_push line (nor should be even close to 80 limit). ...I was even > > thinking of getting totally rid of that skb arg of tcp_mark_push as I > > think it's always tcp_write_queue_tail(sk) that is put there. > > Yes, the skb is always the one at the tail. But in 4/5 cases, the > skb pointer is already available, so may be OK to pass the skb. ...which was exactly why I didn't immediately suggest it :-). > Also, for the NETIF_F_SG patch, I will try to put a meaningful > explanation and resubmit. Thanks. -- i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists