From: "Denis V. Lunev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:33:45 +0300
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > The idea of separate structures make sense, and seems needed and useful.
> >
> > "Denis V. Lunev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> diff --git a/include/net/netns/unix.h b/include/n
From: "Denis V. Lunev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:45:04 +0300
> Changes from v1:
> - renamed fields according to Daniel Lezcano suggestion
More changes from v1:
- Forgot to include net/netns/unix.h in the patch
Please fix this :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the lin
Denis V. Lunev wrote:
Recently David Miller and Herbert Xu pointed out that struct net becomes
overbloated and un-maintainable. There are two solutions:
- provide a pointer to a network subsystem definition from struct net.
This costs an additional dereferrence
- place sub-system definition int
Recently David Miller and Herbert Xu pointed out that struct net becomes
overbloated and un-maintainable. There are two solutions:
- provide a pointer to a network subsystem definition from struct net.
This costs an additional dereferrence
- place sub-system definition into the structure itself.
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> The idea of separate structures make sense, and seems needed and useful.
>
> "Denis V. Lunev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/include/net/netns/unix.h b/include/net/netns/unix.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000..27b4e7f
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/in
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:07 -0700
> Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> >> Can you change this from unx to unix ?
> >
> > no, it won't compile. Guess why :)
>
> Hmm. It looks like it
Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>>
>>>Recently David Miller and Herbert Xu pointed out that struct net becomes
>>>overbloated and un-maintainable. There are two solutions:
>>>- provide a pointer to a network subsystem definition from st
The idea of separate structures make sense, and seems needed and useful.
"Denis V. Lunev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> diff --git a/include/net/netns/unix.h b/include/net/netns/unix.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..27b4e7f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/net/netns/unix.h
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>
>>Recently David Miller and Herbert Xu pointed out that struct net becomes
>>overbloated and un-maintainable. There are two solutions:
>>- provide a pointer to a network subsystem definition from struct net.
>> This costs an additional dereferrence
Denis V. Lunev wrote:
Recently David Miller and Herbert Xu pointed out that struct net becomes
overbloated and un-maintainable. There are two solutions:
- provide a pointer to a network subsystem definition from struct net.
This costs an additional dereferrence
- place sub-system definition int
Recently David Miller and Herbert Xu pointed out that struct net becomes
overbloated and un-maintainable. There are two solutions:
- provide a pointer to a network subsystem definition from struct net.
This costs an additional dereferrence
- place sub-system definition into the structure itself.
11 matches
Mail list logo
