netdev - Re: [Patch net-next 3/7] inetpeer: use generic union inet

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1374545131.24933.4.camel@cr0>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:05:31 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next 3/7] inetpeer: use generic union inet_addr

On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 08:18 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 15:05 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> > From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
> > 
> > struct inetpeer_addr is pretty similar to generic union inet_addr,
> > therefore can be safely converted to it.
> 
> Its 'safe' but adds 50% increase for struct tcp_metrics_block
> 
> I fail to see this mentioned in the changelog.

I asked you in RFC, but you don't give me any response, this is the
reason. :)

> I guess its no big deal, but why do you think this code used hand coded
> functions instead of generic ?
> 
> 
> 

I don't understand what you are asking here, seems totally unrelated
with the point you raised above, therefore I am completely confused...

Thanks.

--
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