* jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-06-29 19:23
> > What's currently
> > done in ifb:
> >
> > skb->dev = skb->input_dev;
> > skb->input_dev = dev;
> >
> > Confusing, isn't it?
>
> not at all. Let me explain the design intent further below.
Then let me show you what your code does:
[mirred attached to filter on eth0 redirecting to ifb0]
tcf_mirred(): skb2->input_dev = skb->dev; (skb2->input_dev=eth0)
ifb_xmit(): skb->dev = skb->input_dev; (skb->dev=eth0)
skb->input_dev = dev; (skb->input_dev=ifb0)
So when reentering the stack the skb looks like it would be
on eth0 coming from ifb0. Is that what you wanted? Shouldn't
it be skb->dev=ifb0 skb->input_dev=eth0? That's what my patch
would change it to.
> I know your intent is noble in trying to save the 32 bits on 64 bit
> machines (at least thats where your patch seems to have started) but the
> cost:benefit ratio as i have pointed out is unreasonable.
Did I ever claim this? You made this up right now. As of now
it doesn't save a single bit.
-
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
