On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 12:25 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> index 5b4ce9b..c726cd4 100644
> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> @@ -407,31 +407,29 @@ static void __copy_skb_header(struct sk_buff *new,
> const struct sk_buff *old)
>
> static struct sk_buff *__skb_clone(struct sk_buff *n, struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> -#define C(x) n->x = skb->x
> -
> n->next = n->prev = NULL;
> n->sk = NULL;
> __copy_skb_header(n, skb);
>
> - C(len);
> - C(data_len);
> - C(mac_len);
> + n->iif = skb->iif;
> + n->len = skb->len;
> + n->data_len = skb->data_len;
> + n->mac_len = skb->mac_len;
> n->cloned = 1;
> n->hdr_len = skb->nohdr ? skb_headroom(skb) : skb->hdr_len;
> n->nohdr = 0;
To reduce possible cacheline bounces, shouldn't the order of
operation on the elements be in struct order?
iif should be after destructor.
nohdr then hdr_len
> n->destructor = NULL;
> - C(truesize);
> + n->truesize = skb->truesize;
> atomic_set(&n->users, 1);
> - C(head);
> - C(data);
> - C(tail);
> - C(end);
> + n->head = skb->head;
> + n->data = skb->data;
> + n->tail = skb->tail;
> + n->end = skb->end;
and perhaps tail,end,head,data,truesize,users?
--
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
