netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: STP and vlan_hard_start

To: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: STP and vlan_hard_start
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:53:32 +0200
Cc: Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@xxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <39F4E7AC.BB5D451E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 06:36:44PM -0700
References: <39F33A68.3B16380A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010231108390.22560-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20001023132903.O7196@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <39F46463.9C5B392D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20001023200358.S7196@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <39F4E7AC.BB5D451E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 06:36:44PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Matti Aarnio wrote:
[snip]
> >         The more I think of these, the more I think we need to start
> >         supporting MBUF-like block chains.  Their uses should be
> >         seriously deprecated and most commonly used protocols and frames
> >         should still use pre-allocation of "hard header", but rarer
> >         things could do chains.
> 
> Chopping up your memory into blocks (which means allocating each block, 
> right?)
> does not seem any more efficient that just leaving adequate space at the
> beginning of the skb, as is possible now.  

 The problem is that you not always know how much is "adequate space" and if 
you didn't guess
correct you must allocate new buffer and copy all data from old one.

--
                        Gleb.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>