On Thu, 2006-29-06 at 17:29 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:26:20 -0400 [..] > > I see; i take it if things were moved around that may change? > > Yes. >
Ok, relief - so i was not totally unreasonable then ;-> > > Can you avoid doing the refcount? > > Note Thomas is doing dev_get_by_index (which will do the atomic ref > > count). > > He is doing that where skb->input_device is needed, which is > what we want. > I am saying the same thing as well - i think. mirred touches the input_dev and therefore setting the refcount in mirred is valid - but iam unsure where to unset it. > > I didnt quiet follow, the ref count seems only needed in the > > redirection, no? > > I'm saying that, we don't need the refcount, just setting > the skb->input_index thing, unless someone actually cares > about the input device. > the ifb references it; only mirred redirects to the ifb at the moment. You would need to increment in mirred, no? Why do i feel i am missing something? ;-> > As long as the packet hits not paths that care about the > SKB input device, no atomic refcounts are taken. It's > just an integer sitting there in the SKB. indeed. I think whether it becomes ifindex or pointer you need to increment the refcounter. and decrement somewhere. The challenge for me is a choice to use more cycles if you use ifindex vs less cycles with a pointer. The advantage for going with ifindex would be to save those bits(if you rearrange). The question is which is reasonable?;-> cheers, jamal - 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
