On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:55:19PM +0200, Ian Brown wrote:
>
> no need to cache this entry ? because as I understand it , next
> sk_buff with the same dest IP will have to get this same
> dst_entry (the head of the list). So why not cache this head of the
> list of dst_entries ?
It's not in the ro
Thanks!
I had though about this in the last two days and a half, and there is
still something which I cannot
understand and it bothers me (while trying vainlesly to sleep).
I am talking about IPV4:
- Can anyone explain in 2-3 sentences what is the reason that there
is no need for caching
dst_en
Ian Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> NOHASH hints that we do not keep the
> an entry in a hash. I doubt that such dst_entries , which are created with
> IPsec and so has the DST_NOHASH flag set, are not kept in the routing cache?
Exactly, they're not in the routing cache (for IPv4 anyway,
ther
Hello,
Thanks!
This make things clear a bit.
What I understand from thee code (__dst_free() in dst.c) is that if we
are freeing a
dst_entry (by calling __dst_free() ), than in case this dst_entry was
created as an IPsec dst_entry it has the DST_NOHASH flag set and this
dst_entry is the first in
Ian Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 3) in net/core/dst.c:
> struct dst_entry *dst_destroy(struct dst_entry * dst)
>{
>...
>...
> int nohash = dst->flags & DST_NOHASH;
>...
>...
> }
You were so close :)
This is where it's used. Look harder.
Hello, netdev,
I try, in vain, to understand what is DST_NOHASH for.
I looked for DST_NOHASH under the linux source tree (http://lxr.linux.no/source)
and found that it appears in 4 files:
1) in include/net/dst.h (just defined there, #define DST_NOHASH 8)
2)
in xfrm4_policy.c:
static int
__xfrm4
