On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 05:16:58PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > I think the atomic operation will still be cheaper than these > two function calls. Even though the second one will be "cheap" > we could be completely done with just one call and not even pay > the reduced price of the second allocation.
That's true. > And since the state tracking is 1) simple and 2) now is known to be > doable using skb->user as the refcount (thus eliding the necessity of > a new atomic_t), I don't see why in the world you are showing a > dislike for the fast-cloning optimization? Well I don't think I understand the new skb->user solution yet :) For a start, skb->users will prevent the skb->data area from being freed as well as the skb itself. We'll also need to audit the TCP code paths to make sure that nobody is doing a skb_shared() check since that either leads to another clone or a BUG. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - 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
