On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:24:08AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > So there is no place at the end of skb for additional pointer. > And new question arises - until what Jesse suggested is implemented in > some way, do we need to store a pointer to shared info inside skb and > allocate it from cache in case it does no fit into aligned buffer (in > case of e1000 it happens all the time exept 1500 MTU)? > David, Herbert?
I'm not sure whether this is really worth it. After all, the only order of allocation that's really likely to succeed is 0. So going from order 3 to order 2 probably doesn't make that big a difference. 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
