[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47381573.5020506@openvz.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:57:23 +0300
From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use list_head-s in inetpeer.c
David Miller wrote:
> From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
> 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 <xemul@...nvz.org>
>
> 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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists