[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47549B05.5090507@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:10:45 -0500
From: Hideo AOKI <haoki@...hat.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Satoshi Oshima <satoshi.oshima.fk@...achi.com>,
Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
Yumiko Sugita <yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] datagram: mem_scheudle functions
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:52:59PM -0500, Hideo AOKI wrote:
>> +static inline int sk_wmem_schedule(struct sock *sk, int size)
>> +{
>> + if (sk->sk_type == SOCK_STREAM)
>> + return sk_stream_wmem_schedule(sk, size);
>> + else if (sk->sk_type == SOCK_DGRAM)
>> + return sk_datagram_wmem_schedule(sk, size);
>> + else
>> + return 1;
>> +}
>
> Why do we need this function? As far as I can see we always know
> whether it's a stream or datagram socket at compile time so doing
> a run-time test is pointless.
Because we have to call wmem_schedule function in ip_append_data()
which is used by several protocols both stream and datagram.
I just thought adding the sk_wmem_schedule() was only way to call
proper function from ip_append_data().
Please let me know if I misunderstand or there is better way to
call wmem_schedule functions.
Best regards,
Hideo
--
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
--
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