Re: [PATCH net-next 0/13] sk_buff: add extension infrastructure

2018-12-19 Thread David Miller
From: David Miller Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 11:02:22 -0800 (PST) > I have no major issues with the approach, but I just want to understand all > of the details before I apply this. > > And honestly, if this turns out to be the wrong direction we can > revert and try doing this another way. Ok, I

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/13] sk_buff: add extension infrastructure

2018-12-19 Thread David Miller
From: Florian Westphal Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:15:14 +0100 > TL;DR: > - objdiff shows no change if CONFIG_XFRM=n && BR_NETFILTER=n > - small size reduction when one or both options are set > - no changes in ipsec performance > > Changes since v1: > - Allocate entire extension space from a

[PATCH net-next 0/13] sk_buff: add extension infrastructure

2018-12-18 Thread Florian Westphal
TL;DR: - objdiff shows no change if CONFIG_XFRM=n && BR_NETFILTER=n - small size reduction when one or both options are set - no changes in ipsec performance Changes since v1: - Allocate entire extension space from a kmem_cache. - Avoid atomic_dec_and_test operation on skb_ext_put() for refc

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/13] sk_buff: add extension infrastructure

2018-12-12 Thread Shannon Nelson
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:21 AM Florian Westphal wrote: > > The (out-of-tree) Multipath-TCP implementation needs to map logical mptcp > sequence numbers to the tcp sequence numbers used by individual subflows. > This DSS mapping is read/written from tcp option space on receive and > written to tcp

[PATCH net-next 0/13] sk_buff: add extension infrastructure

2018-12-10 Thread Florian Westphal
The (out-of-tree) Multipath-TCP implementation needs to map logical mptcp sequence numbers to the tcp sequence numbers used by individual subflows. This DSS mapping is read/written from tcp option space on receive and written to tcp option space on transmitted tcp packets that are part of and MPTCP