Thanks Eric! > We expect wifi drivers to set this field to smaller values (tests have > been done with values from 6 to 9)
I suppose we should test each driver or so. > They would have to use following template : > > if (skb->sk && skb->sk->sk_pacing_shift != MY_PACING_SHIFT) > skb->sk->sk_pacing_shift = MY_PACING_SHIFT; Hm. I wish we wouldn't have to do this on every skb, but perhaps it doesn't matter that much. > u16 sk_gso_max_segs; > + u8 sk_pacing_shift; I guess you tried to fill a hole, but weren't we saying that it would be better in the same cacheline? Then again, perhaps both cachelines are resident anyway, haven't looked at this now. Unrelated to that, I think this is missing a documentation update since the struct has kernel-doc comments. johannes
