On 2/8/06, Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:24:24 -0800 > Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:26:01 -0800 (PST) > > > "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:19:42 -0800 > > >> > > >> > > >>>Also, isn't a lot of the problem reduced if network devices > > >>>are affinitied? > > >> > > >>Not for routing/firewalling, we touch the destination device's > > >>counters on input softing of the source device. > > > > > > > > > IMHO converting skb->dev to skb->devindex and using ifindex sounds best. > > > It gets rid of the need to refcount as much but keeps the safety from > > > buggy protocols. Ipv6 could probably use ifindex as well. > > > > If we do this, can we keep a skb->dev pointer and assign it lazily > > (sort of like we do with the timestamp?) That way, we can hopefully > > optimize to not bump the refcount in the hot path, but older protocols > > can easily be made to work as they have been... > > No, just fix the protocols.
Exactly, no point in keeping cruft, we still have SOCKOPS_WRAPPED, etc, it just piles up. - Arnaldo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
