[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140611.150823.2146273068682655735.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: _govind@....com, dborkman@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
ssujith@...co.com, gvaradar@...co.com, benve@...co.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] flow_keys: Record IP layer protocol in
skb_flow_dissect()
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:26:30 -0700
>
>> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 19:38 +0530, Govindarajulu Varadarajan wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> determining IPv4/IPv6 is important because this can be used in dissecting flow
>>> in Accelerated RFS. Adaptor does not support IPv6 filters. Since Accelerated
>>> RFS is supported for IPV6, using skb_flow_dissect will return true with non-zero
>>> values in src/dst for IPv6.
>>>
>>> If I am going to write separate function for getting IP address and port
>>> numbers, its definition is going to be somewhat same as skb_flow_dissect.
>>> Why not improve whats already written and reuse it?
>>>
>>> Is there any significant downside of adding u16 n_proto and increasing
>>> size of qdisc_skb_cb by 4 bytes?
>>
>> You can avoid this increase (might be bad for IB, hard to tell), by
>> changing sch_choke.c to only store a part of the struct flow_keys.
>
> I think this is fine, IPOIB's control block will need still just 44
> bytes after these changes, so there will still be 4 bytes to spare.
>
> I'm going to apply this series.
Actually, I change my mind, Govindarajulu can you address Sergei's feedback
in your other changes and repost this series?
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists