[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20111115.032343.1203870624086709786.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:23:43 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: lw@...fujitsu.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: fix for ip_options_rcv_srr() daddr update.
From: Li Wei <lw@...fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:51:29 +0800
>> From: Li Wei <lw@...fujitsu.com>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:26:31 +0800
>>
>>> My question, in ip_forward() and ip_forward_options() rt is there, why not
>>> we just use it?
>>
>> Because I'm trying to eliminate all accesses to rt->rt_dst because
>> when I remove the routing cache, routes will be shared. One 'rt'
>> will refer to many specific destination addresses.
>>
>>
> Sorry, I can't understand what you said, can you make it more clear?
>
> I think in ip_forward(), we need 'rt' to forward skb, until this skb has been
> forwarded we hold a reference to it in skb, We can use rt->rt_dst safely, It
> is an ordinary __be32 not a reference.
My long term plan is to eliminate cached routes, we will directly use
routing table entries instead.
In such a scheme, the member rt->rt_dst will no longer even exist.
This is what I've been working towards for more than a year, it is a
slow and very difficult transformation.
If you starting adding rt->rt_dst references back, we are taking
steps backwards.
--
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