On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:13:21 +0200
>
> > > Basically, you'll have skb->free_callback(skb, ARG), and
> > > skb->free_callback_ARG. And when the SKB and it's memory
> >
> Another approach would be:
>
> 1) Determine that we don't care about the callback (ie. it gets
>reset to NULL) when the skb->dev changes, as would occur for
>forwarding, and certain kinds of firewalling and classification
>actions.
>
> 2) As a result of #1 we can put the callback i
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:00:17 +0200
> > Another approach would be:
> >
> > 1) Determine that we don't care about the callback (ie. it gets
> >reset to NULL) when the skb->dev changes, as would occur for
> >forwarding, and certain kinds of firewalling
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 03:34:16 +0200
> In theory the NIC could store it in a separate data structure, but
> that would be wasteful IMHO because it would duplicate what a socket
> does. So it's best to add a last_rcv_cpu field to the struct sock
> and make sur
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:13:21 +0200
> > Basically, you'll have skb->free_callback(skb, ARG), and
> > skb->free_callback_ARG. And when the SKB and it's memory
> > is about to get liberated, we'll call the callback instead
> > of doing the free if the callback
>
> Basically, you'll have skb->free_callback(skb, ARG), and
> skb->free_callback_ARG. And when the SKB and it's memory
> is about to get liberated, we'll call the callback instead
> of doing the free if the callback is non-NULL.
One issue is that the NIC focus shouldn't be reprogrammed for ever
> -Original Message-
> From: David S. Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:34 PM
> We'll be adding the RX free callback support soon, perhaps in
> the 2.6.14 timeframe, once we shrink the sk_buff struct a
> little bit more so that we can justify adding t
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:33:36PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: "Leonid Grossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:02:00 -0400
>
> > Andi, can you provide a callback patch please?
>
> Andi isn't very active in the networking these days,
> so asking him to do the work whil
From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:38:24 +0100
> Does it really need to be in the skbuff? I I think a
> rx_free_skb method in struct net_device would be sufficient.
The device on the SKB can be changed long before we free
it, due to netfilter, traffic classific
From: "Leonid Grossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:02:00 -0400
> Andi, can you provide a callback patch please?
Andi isn't very active in the networking these days,
so asking him to do the work whilst he's so busy with
x86_64 maintainence isn't the best idea :)
We'll be addin
> -Original Message-
> From: Andi Kleen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 9:36 AM
> To: David S. Miller
> Cc: Leonid Grossman; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED
11 matches
Mail list logo
