On Fri, 2006-30-06 at 02:55 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote: > * jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-06-29 20:48
> The point is to avoid having an atomic operation for every packet > when setting iif in netif_receive_skb(). If it was only for > mirred nobody would complain I guess. > I never intended to punish all users. I think i was misunderstood. The only problem is where do you decrement the refcount when you increment at mirred? In your case, I assume it is at some sort of rule destruction? > > I think whether it becomes ifindex or pointer you need to increment the > > refcounter. and decrement somewhere. > > The challenge for me is a choice to use more cycles if you use ifindex > > vs less cycles with a pointer. The advantage for going with ifindex > > would be to save those bits(if you rearrange). The question is which is > > reasonable?;-> > > The third choice is to just don't care if the interface goes away > but have a chance to figure it out and just assume as if it would > have never been set. The number of devices that can disappear w/o > user control is very very limited and not worth an atomic operation > for every single packet. > Now that you mention this - I think that option 3 is what we said last time we had this discussion ;-> cheers, jamal - 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
