[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090304161335.GC6392@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:13:35 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, pekkas@...core.fi,
jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: [Patch 3/5] Network Drop Monitor: Adding kfree_skb_clean for
non-drops and modifying end-of-line points for skbs
Em Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:18:31AM -0500, Neil Horman escreveu:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:54:15AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 12:03:07PM -0500, Neil Horman escreveu:
> > >
> > > Network Drop Monitor: Adding kfree_skb_clean for non-drops and modifying end-of-line points for skbs
> > > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
> >
> > Why just not add a "drop_skb()" instead? kfree_skb_clean sounds as if we
> > will do some cleanup on the skb being freed. "drop_skb()" seems much
> > clearer.
> >
> > - Arnaldo
> >
>
> Check the RFC thread. The cases in which we are dropping far outnumber the set
> of cases in which we free the skb simply because its the end of the line.
> Theres far less churn this way
I wouldn't mind the churn, as I really think drop_skb() would be
clearer, but then this is up to Dave.
- 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