On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 09:43 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > Read the history. I still say it is best if we don't accept a partial > solution. If we are going to introduce the sysctl as a core item it > should function as a core item and not as something that belongs to > TCP only.
But this patch is the base, adding both the core sysctl and its first usage. Do we really need to split it in 2 patches ? Really ? The goal is to use it in all skb providers were it might be a performance gain, once they are identified. Your points were already raised and will be addressed, by either me or you. And maybe others.
