From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:32:33 +0200
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:44:47PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 12 Jul 2005 04:25:49 +0200
> >
> > > What other plans do have? I think a lot of stuff could be moved
> >
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:44:47PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 12 Jul 2005 04:25:49 +0200
>
> > What other plans do have? I think a lot of stuff could be moved
> > into ->cb, in particular tc_* and the HIPPI field.
>
> See:
>
> http://vger.k
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Jul 2005 04:25:49 +0200
> What other plans do have? I think a lot of stuff could be moved
> into ->cb, in particular tc_* and the HIPPI field.
See:
http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net_todo.html
there is an entry entitled "SKBs are too large",
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> As an aside, this reminds me that as part of my quest to make
> sk_buff smaller, I intend to walk across the tree and change
> all tests of the form:
What other plans do have? I think a lot of stuff could be moved
into ->cb, in particular tc_* and
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:03:27 -0300
> Of course only the skbs created after the skb_alloc_extension() call would
> be valid for the subsystem
> that alloced the extension, would this be a problem?
It might be. It is entirely possible, for exam
