On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 09:46 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote: > > Then that's increasing the udp_sock structure size for a narrow use > case which will get push back. I think it's going to be better to > stick with one sock pointer. We could maybe redefine sk_user_data as a > pointer to an allocated structure or array so it can hold multiple > user_data pointers (in lieu of chaining). >
We do not have a lot of UDP sockets per host, I do not believe it should be a problem adding stuff in them.
