> No objections to new year resolution of slimming the skb.
> But: i am still concerned about the recursion that getting rid of
> some of these bits could embolden. i.e my suggestion was infact to
> restore some of those bits taken away by Florian after the ingress
> redirect patches from Shmulik.
And a happy new year netdev.
No objections to new year resolution of slimming the skb.
But: i am still concerned about the recursion that getting rid of
some of these bits could embolden. i.e my suggestion was infact to
restore some of those bits taken away by Florian after the ingress
redirect pa
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 10:21 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Willem de Bruijn
> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:13:24 -0500
>
>> The skb tc_verd field takes up two bytes but uses far fewer bits.
>> Convert the remaining use cases to bitfields that fit in existing
>> holes (depending on config options)
From: Willem de Bruijn
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:13:24 -0500
> The skb tc_verd field takes up two bytes but uses far fewer bits.
> Convert the remaining use cases to bitfields that fit in existing
> holes (depending on config options) and potentially save the two
> bytes in struct sk_buff.
I lik
