* Andrew Gallatin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020711 11:32] wrote:
>
> Alfred Perlstein writes:
> > Some time ago I noticed that there appeared to be several members
> > of struct socket that were either only used by listen sockets or
> > only used by data sockets.
> >
> > I've taken a stab at uni
Mike Silbersack writes:
>
> Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this:
>
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/07/03/0011.html
>
Its very worthwhile. Tru64 has had this for years. I think there may
be a Jeff Mogul paper on it somewhere (but I don't have time t
Alfred Perlstein writes:
> Some time ago I noticed that there appeared to be several members
> of struct socket that were either only used by listen sockets or
> only used by data sockets.
>
> I've taken a stab at unionizing the members and we wind up saving
> 28 bytes per socket on i386,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 12:37:57PM -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 10:29:37AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:22:14PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 10:29:37AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:22:14PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> ...
> > > > Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this:
> > > >
> > > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/07/03/0011.html
> > >
> > > UDP soc
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:22:14PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote:
...
> > > Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this:
> > >
> > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/07/03/0011.html
> >
> > UDP sockets have the same problem... i posted patches for that
> > case around dec
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 10:16:36AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 11:56:22AM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> ...
> > Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this:
> >
> > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/07/03/0011.html
>
> UDP sockets have the sam
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 11:56:22AM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote:
...
> Speaking of competition, someone should go look at this:
>
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/07/03/0011.html
UDP sockets have the same problem... i posted patches for that
case around dec.2000 which i never en
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > * Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020707 21:48] wrote:
> > >
> > > I do have a smaller TIME_WAIT structure done; it even throws the socket
> > > away since it isn't needed. The savings are current
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020707 21:48] wrote:
> >
> > I do have a smaller TIME_WAIT structure done; it even throws the socket
> > away since it isn't needed. The savings are currently about 500 bytes,
> > and I can and also perform some
* Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020707 21:48] wrote:
>
> I do have a smaller TIME_WAIT structure done; it even throws the socket
> away since it isn't needed. The savings are currently about 500 bytes,
> and I can and also perform some other savings in the general case.
>
> I think Alfred
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
you write:
>
>On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
>> Possibly, but the additional pointer dereference would be expensive
>> and a lot of code would have to change without the compatibility
>> macros.
>>
>> I sort of did it as a proof of concept, but of cour
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Possibly, but the additional pointer dereference would be expensive
> and a lot of code would have to change without the compatibility
> macros.
>
> I sort of did it as a proof of concept, but of course since it doesn't
> completely work I haven't pr
On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 01:14:21PM -0700, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-07-07 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: the incredible shrinking socket ]
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> > > Some ti
* Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020707 12:36] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > Some time ago I noticed that there appeared to be several members
> > of struct socket that were either only used by listen sockets or
> > only used by data sockets.
> >
> > I've tak
* De: Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-07-07 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: the incredible shrinking socket ]
>
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > Some time ago I noticed that there appeared to be several members
> > of struct socket th
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Some time ago I noticed that there appeared to be several members
> of struct socket that were either only used by listen sockets or
> only used by data sockets.
>
> I've taken a stab at unionizing the members and we wind up saving
> 28 bytes per soc
17 matches
Mail list logo
