[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101129.223115.260071567.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:31:15 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: xiaosuo@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] inetpeer: Support ipv6 addresses.
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:11:19 +0100
> Le lundi 29 novembre 2010 à 21:53 -0800, David Miller a écrit :
>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:42:16 +0100
>>
>> > Its a bit early in the morning here, I must confess I dont yet
>> > understand your patch David :)
>> >
>> > As we use a tree, why not using two different trees for ipv4 / ipv6 ?
>>
>> The "key" just creates a natural ordering in the tree, it's
>> almost arbitrary except that it must distribute well amongst
>> the entries.
>
> Hmm. AVL search must take a decision, take the left or the right path.
>
> if current key is equal, which path do you take ?
Right. :-) But yes there is some error that needs to
be handled in that equal keys can lead to imporper paths
as you showed.
I guess I do need to make a seperate tree, how disappointing.
Anyways I will work on fixing this.
> Do you know how to make an estimation on a server ?
No way to do it straightforward I guess because right now TCP metrics
key on all sorts of rediculious things like source address, TOS, and
other crap as a consequence of how the routing cache works.
So much replicated information and wasted memory.
--
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