[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080131133954.GU1819@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:39:55 -0200
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6][INET]: Consolidate inet(6)_hash_connect.
Em Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 04:18:51PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov escreveu:
> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 03:32:09PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov escreveu:
> >> These two functions are the same except for what they call
> >> to "check_established" and "hash" for a socket.
> >>
> >> This saves half-a-kilo for ipv4 and ipv6.
> >
> > Good stuff!
> >
> > Yesterday I was perusing tcp_hash and I think we could have the hashinfo
> > pointer stored perhaps in sk->sk_prot.
> >
> > That way we would be able to kill tcp_hash(), inet_put_port() could
> > receive just sk, etc.
>
> But each proto will still have its own hashfn, so proto's
> callbacks will be called to hash/unhash sockets, so this will
> give us just one extra dereference. No?
>
> > What do you think?
>
> Hmmm... Even raw_hash, etc may become simpler. On the other hand
> maybe this is a good idea, but I'm not very common with this code
> yet to foresee such things in advance... I think that we should
> try to prepare a patch and look, but if you have smth ready, then
> it's better to review your stuff first.
gimme some minutes
- Arnaldo
--
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